The problem with that line of thinking, to me, is we have state apparatuses fully and ever-increasingly capable of manufacturing crises to compel individuals in ways that would otherwise not be acceptable. On top of that, I see a qualitative difference between a compulsion of labor or rations impeding bodily autonomy in a superficial sense, and the compulsion of injections (or lobotomies, or sterilization) which seems to strike a deeper and more serious infringement on bodily integrity. Given those factors, I think it's very crucial that societal decisionmakers err towards preserving individual independence and are not misleadingly guided towards other ends.
I see where you are coming from, but I would caution against such comparisons to lobotomies and eugenics. Those interventions were not in response to a large-scale crisis but were novel methods of solving problems for which there had been no previous solution.
I think my comparisons are more apt because they involve sacrifice and risk, but not incontrovertible harm. People getting the vaccine were mitigating a personal risk which at that time happened to be in line with what was believed to be a societal need (herd immunity) -- a minute chance of an adverse effect, compared to the yet-unknown effects of covid itself was deemed to be acceptable.
Was it a poor decision? Looking back on it, yes. If placed in the same position of a society-disrupting and mass-death causing pandemic with a new vaccine which has all the signs of being able to fast-track herd immunity and save millions of lives, would I be fine with mandatory vaccinations? Probably. Should we be incredibly careful when it comes to doing things like that and putting in place the mechanisms for similar actions? Absolutely.
