Pandemic Ethics - Injection mandates are immoral (Ben Shapiro edition)

Pandemic Ethics - Injection mandates are immoral (Ben Shapiro edition)
People have been trying to rationalize the suspension of human liberties in the name of “saving lives” or “doing it for others” or “for the greater good”, conveniently forgetting that all dictatorships in history had similar justifications for greater goods.
So Ben Shapiro, known fake libertarian, and masked authoritarian, once suggested that it was libertarian to coerce people to get injected...
Sorry fanboys, but that argument is false, and I will explain why. I am surprised that Ben is considered to be good at debating, because he wouldn’t stand a chance against me in a debate. Listen up and make up your own mind.
This example of "poisoning the river" is a false equivalence fallacy, a straw man fallacy, a non-sequitor fallacy, and a Humean blunder, since you cannot logically get an “ought” from an “is”.
Overly educated and demonstrably low IQ people may say that even in libertarianism, you could force people to get injected with an arbitrarily chosen experimental unproven injection because if you don't get said big-corpo product, it's the equivalent of you poisoning a river, and poisoning everyone else downstream.
This is false on many levels:
1. This poisoning the river comparison is not the same thing. To poison a river, you need to take action which is outside of your default inert state. Your default is not poisoning a river. In the case of the "deadly pathogen", your default is NOT being injected. You cannot harm anyone by not taking action outside of your default state. Oh, but you might say but this time, this novel paradigm-shifting viral pathogen is more dangerous and therefore, we need to arbitrarily change accepted human behavior, but this is also false. We always carry pathogens and transmit them to others with a potential to kill them. This is life. It’s been like this for billions of years. I don’t see any one of you feeling particularly guilty about being part of the annual flu chain of transmission that ends up killing thousands and thousands every year.
2. You cannot arbitrarily accuse someone of poisoning your river, and then think you have the right to impose stuff on them. Where is the hard evidence? Where is the data? Do you know for a fact, enough to bet your life on it, that the uninjected are somehow more of a threat to you than your own reckless behavior? Is it proven or is it just your paranoia? This is not how civilized society works. If anyone could accuse anyone of anything, and then think they have a right to impose mandates on whatever, then we’d be living in chaos, because this is what chaos is: people feeling aggrieved and entitled enough to exert violence on others. In civilized societies, unlike the one Ben is living, you have to prove your case in a fair trial where you give your opponent the benefit of making their case too. This one-sided fact checking and single-narrative bullshit is the definition of superstitious