Again, this is not dissimilar to a provision in the original 1984 Act:
'36Medical examination of group of persons believed to comprise carrier of notifiable disease
(1)If a justice of the peace (acting, if he deems it necessary, ex parte) is satisfied, on a written certificate issued by the proper officer of the local authority for a district—
(a)that there is reason to believe that one of a group of persons, though not suffering from a notifiable disease, is carrying an organism that is capable of causing it, and
(b)that in the interest of those persons or their families, or in the public interest, it is expedient that those persons should be medically examined,
the justice may order them to be medically examined by a registered medical practitioner nominated by the local authority for that district.'
The basic, fundamental fact is that not only does current legislation not provide for compulsory vaccination, it explicitly forbids any form of compulsory medical treatment. Even when someone consents to treatment, there is a legal duty on the person providing the treatment to explain its purpose and possible side-effects. I get this type of spiel every time I have a flu jab (though so far I've not had any side-effects). AFAIK, health workers are not obliged to have the flu jab, though they are strongly encouraged to have one. No doubt they'll be in the front go the queue if/when a COVID vaccine is developed, but I'll be with Macca right behind them.
But as I said up-thread, vaccination has always produced paranoia, most recently in the case of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) jab. A 'heretic' doctor produced evidence that the jab caused autism. In fact, he'd fiddled the data, and the risk of autism is no greater in children who have the jab compared to those who don't, though the latter can, and often do, develop the potentially fatal diseases the jab protects them from.