why no individual can be subjected to forced inoculation to allegedly protect the public

Fine.

1.

As long as it can be proven beyond Reasonable Doubt that it is only the uninjected whom can spread the infection; produce killer variants; and that taking the injection will make it impossible for him to spread the infection or get infected by it. 

And if all of the above can be proven beyond Reasonable Doubt, that means there is no reason for the individual to take it as those whom took it will be completely protected. 

2.

It must also be proven beyond Reasonable Doubt that this measure cannot kill or maim anyone as all lives are equal in value before the law and there is no reason for one to be subjected to possible harm or death to save another. To deny this is to subject the entire public this measure purports to protect to possible death to save their lives, which is a contradiction in terms, and which reveal such an exercise as heinous in nature by consequence, if not in intent, and may thus be deemed an Act of Terrorism requiring immediate action to put down the threat by any party available to do so and be any means necessary to reinstate the safety of the public.

3.

Finally, it must also be proven beyond Reasonable Doubt that such forced treatment cannot be used as a pretext to injure or kill people. If this cannot be proven to not be the case beyond Reasonable Doubt, then the imposition of such an order is tantamount to premeditated grievous bodily harm and murder, genocidal terrorism, and treason.  In such a case, the people can utilise their natural Right to Self-defence and remove such a threat to their lives immediately and permanently by any means necessary to effect it so as to protect the public health.

edX