Understood.
Our debate, if we have one, is not about the Constitution being a "suicide pact".
Your argument, if I understand you correctly, is that the entire science of epidemiology -- is sufficient proof to warrant government intervention in the case of a pandemic.
The root understanding of government, at least the U.S. Government, is that it's there to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Or phrased another way, to protect property (which includes the lives) of the people that comprise the nation.
So from these two arguments, I agree.
The science of epidemiology -- is enough proof to warrant government intervention.
So we agree thus far.
But there's a small problem... Rather teensy-weensy, in fact...
It comes from your use of the word "mandatory".
If you had said everything you had said without this word, or perhaps used the word "volunatary" in its place -- then we would be agreed 100%.
(Note to self: It's amazing how one word, just one word, on a forum post can create disagreements)
Because you used the word "mandatory", I think it's time for a quick recap of the root purpose and function of the U.S. Government.
You see, our Government has what amounts to a huge problem on its hands.
That is, it is supposed to preserve and protect the rights and freedom, the liberty, of its citizens, all of its citizens. At the same time.
Well, how exactly do you do this, do you accomplish this marvelous feat, in a case where Citizen A has some right, which we'll call "Right X", and when Citizen A exercises Right X, it interferes with Citizen B exercising a different right, "Right Y"
So it's Citizen A's Right X Vs. Citizen B's Right Y.
That's problematic, hugely problematic!
If the Government enforces Citizen A's right, Right X, then it equal-and-oppositely destroys Citizen B's right, Right Y.
If the Government enforces Citizen B's right, Right Y, then it equal-and-oppositely destroys Citizen A's right, Right X.
It's quite the dilemma, let me tell you!
So how could Government ever enforce something, how could government ever enforce anything, if it destroyed the rights (the rights that it was created to protect!) of an individual?
Warning: Deep answer coming from years and years of studying U.S. Law:
It can't.
Now, there's a very nuanced understanding there, let me see if I can explain it here with limited space:
It can't -- but it can "order", "require", "mandate", "enact" (choose whatever language you want), that its people, en masse, either do or do not do something.
It can even tell you that "this is Law".
(Fun fact: We have a Supreme Court to tell us when the things that other people have told us are "Law" -- are actually not "Law", and never were(!)... but we could also use the right logic, and discover this for ourselves...)
The problem is that the word "mandate" conveys the idea to the general (not educated in Law) population that something is required for them to do.
But see, you can't require people to do anything -- if and when it conflicts with any of their other rights.
We have Courts to resolve these rights issues -- that is the great purpose of Courts -- to resolve issues where Citizen A's Right X interferes with Citizen B's Right, or when the Government, by action or inaction, interfere with any of its Citizen's Rights, either en masse, or even individually.
Any government, and especially the U.S. Government -- is like that old story of many blind men in a room with an elephant -- they're supposed to touch it, and tell the others what it is. But because they are perceptually blinded, they only touch part of it, and what they communicate to each other is a localized perception, and ultimately, not the big picture of what it is...
If you feel that any, and I mean any force of Government is sufficient to get me to unwillingly relinquish my rights, then all I can say is that you don't understand Government.
The U.S. Government is there to protect me, and my rights, and you and your rights -- from other people that would step on them -- up to and including people in the U.S. Government, up to and including factions of the U.S. Government, and even up to and including the entire U.S. Government itself.
The U.S. Government can request, but it can never demand (even though it can use fancy language to make it appear that it is demanding!), especially if one or more of those demands are in contradiction to one or more of the principles of its founding.
So... that approaches a more nuanced understanding...
Or, you could have simply removed the word "mandatory" (because we're talking to a group of people who are mostly uneducated in Law) and/or replaced it with "voluntary"...
You would have had 100% of my agreement, if you did...