And where's it stop, Dingle? If you are going to say that it's perfectly fine to require vaccinations unless it is blocking one from something that is guaranteed in the Constitution, you can make a person's world very small and his opportunities very limited. There are plenty of people (and a growing number, I'd say) who have legitimate and sincere reasons for refusing vaccinations. If one doesn't have the right to travel, attend school, work, or participate fully in society because he is not willing to take a vaccine, does he really have freedom? I don't think so.
I know that there are certain things that require vaccinations right now, but for the moment they are fairly limited. The more that is expanded, especially if it is to activities that are more normal and widespread like travel on a plane, the more you are impacting and limiting the freedoms of individuals unless they do things mandated by the state. That's almost never a good thing.
You're on a very slippery slope when you start requiring vaccinations in order to participate in activities that may not be protected by the Constitution, but are essential for one's ability to participate in society. Especially for a virus that is about as harmful as the flu for most of the population. I would make the argument that such restrictions are in violation of the Constitution as they are preventing a person's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.