Your excellent reply makes an outstanding argument for not legislating vaccination: The science is far from settled.
Until we have answers that are absolutely certain and the long-term risks are known, we are merely experimenting on the whole of the populace, which could lead to disastrous long-term outcomes.
As I said, actually legislating vaccination is a complicated question and it depends on the details of the legislation in question on whether I would personally support it.
However, I think your other points are incorrect. Policy making is always about making decisions under uncertainty so we have to make the best decisions we can given the data we have. And the data we have I believe is overwhelmingly clear that any risks associated with vaccination are dramatically smaller than the risks of COVID itself. To date I am unaware of any substantiated risks of vaccination which aren't also risks of COVID infection and where the risk is much higher from infection than from vaccination. It can be tricky at times because mass vaccination will generally affect more people than infection so you have to weigh the relative risks appropriately. However, in the current case where we have a highly infectious respiratory virus we seem destined to end up with an endemic disease which only happens when ~100% of the population has already been either vaccinated or infected. So to first approximation your only two choices are to get the vaccine or (eventually) get infected with COVID. Given that and the very clear data we have now about the relatively insignificant risks of the vaccine relative to infection, getting vaccinated should be the obvious best option. After all, getting infected with a novel virus that is (now) easily preventable is ALSO experimenting with your health.
Until we have answers that are absolutely certain and the long-term risks are known, we are merely experimenting on the whole of the populace, which could lead to disastrous long-term outcomes.
Policy should be based on facts, not guesses.