You are willing to violate people’s freedom in order to promote “public health” on one case. But you’re not willing to violate people’s freedom in order to promote “public health” in the other case. Why? Because in the other case supposedly the violation is “too high”.
Well, libertarians move the “too high” line much lower. But - in principle - how exactly is your stance in case of not forcing people to finish their antibiotics treatment different from the libertarian stance?
How “libertarian” of you.
You’re willing to trade your freedom for safety (however imaginary that safety is, in my opinion). That’s the slave’s mentality I was talking about.