I translated this after gleaning it from a JacobinMag article of all places, then, my jaw dropped.

We haven't apparently moved a single inch away from The Weimar Republic and its problems.

While only an excerpt, one may find other portions in this article of great historical significance.

A fifth explanation for the rigid implementation of compulsory vaccination in Weimar is related to this interrelationship between prevention and professionalization. The coercive state measures and the power of the vaccinators were controversial from the start, but the critical voices became louder and louder over time. After the revolution of 1918, this opposition was fed by social democratic and communist, but also by bourgeois and denominational circles 41, so that a cross-party, albeit extremely heterogeneous, opposition was articulated in the criticism of compulsory vaccination 42. It included doctors 43 , social physicians and politicians such as the social democrat Julius Moses, who did not doubt the effectiveness of vaccinations, but the benefits of mandatory vaccination 44 . Other forces, on the other hand, rejected vaccinations on principle. They organized themselves in associations such as the "German Reich Association for Combating Vaccination" with 300,000 members 45, they published magazines, brochures and books or invited to "popular meetings against the vaccination madness" 46 . Such agitation has occasionally been dismissed in research as “sabotage” 47, as backward, even naïve criticism of the health system 48. Eberhard Wolff, on the other hand, has shown 49 that the opponents of vaccination came from different milieus and sometimes represented very contemporary positions. Under the banner of the “opponents of vaccination”, life reformers and social medicine experts came together, as did naturopaths, cultural critics and pessimists of progress, who declared war on “orthodox medicine”, “the” medical profession and state health policy. It should therefore be fruitful for contemporary historical research to analyze vaccination criticism as a form of protest movement fed by a contemporary awareness of crisis 50.

While from today's perspective the heterogeneity of those who criticize vaccination is obvious, the defenders of compulsory vaccination found it difficult to recognize this diversity; they mostly spoke of a “movement” of “opponents of vaccination”. It was this horror that drew the defenders closer together. Finally, the vaccination critics seemed to question the legitimacy of state vaccination programs as well as the professionalism of the vaccinators. This is probably the most important explanation for the fact that the obligation to vaccinate against smallpox was defended with great determination by politicians, medical officials and doctors in the Weimar Republic: the enforcement of the obligation to vaccinate confirmed both the state authority over the "national body" and the medical rule of interpretation over the health of the citizens.

From the mid-1920s, however, the voices of those who campaigned for an end to compulsory vaccination increased among doctors and medical officials. At a meeting of the Prussian state health council in October 1925, the introduction of a conscience clause was discussed, which, based on the English model, would have made vaccinations voluntary in principle. Various arguments were heard from the proponents of this clause, in which the broad spectrum of criticism of vaccination unfolded. Vaccinations should be rejected "from the point of view of racial hygiene", said the later chairman of the "Reich Opponent Center" Wilhelm Winsch. The expert Heinrich Böing went less far. He did not want vaccination per se, but he wanted to abolish the compulsion, especially since in the event of an epidemic there would be the possibility of compulsory vaccination anyway. The proponents of compulsory vaccination strongly opposed it in the debate. Heinrich A. Gins from the Robert Koch Institute even saw the conscience clause as a “crime against public health”. Not only does it undermine medical authority, it also facilitates the introduction of smallpox. Wilhelm Kolle, head of the Paul Ehrlich Institute, on the other hand, made a pragmatic plea for compulsory vaccination: “There are things that you have to put up with; they are unfortunately a by-product of developments in our circumstances, not just in nature.” 51

It was this tension between the common good and individual freedoms that led to "political gaffes" during the session, as observed by the doctor and SPD member of parliament Hermann Weyl. The head of the Göttingen Hygiene Institute, Hans Reichenbach, was particularly surprised at the position of the Social Democrats. It didn't make sense to him at all that "the gentlemen, for whom the general public is more important than anything else, put the individual in the foreground so strongly". In contrast, the proponents of compulsory vaccination take the position [...] that, in the interest of the general public, an inconvenience, even a certain danger, may be imposed on the individual. […] We want to put the individual behind the general public in any case.” 52 This position prevailed at the end of the session with 15 votes to six, so that the conscience clause was off the table, but the problem of compulsory vaccination was still before was unresolved.

This became very clear a few years later, when a scandal put the “vaccination issue” back on the political agenda. In 1930, 77 children died in Lübeck after the introduction of a tuberculosis vaccine, and more than a hundred children suffered severe damage to their health53. As "horrible" "Lübeck child deaths" and "infant murders" he found scandal made headlines in the national and international press. Numerous newspaper editors sent their reporters north to document the reign of terror of “Herod of Lübeck” 54. This case marked the framework of the debate for the years that followed. Because although the accident was "only" a consequence of incorrectly stored vaccines and tuberculosis immunization was hardly practiced in the Reich, let alone ordered by the state, health policy in general and smallpox vaccination in particular were suddenly put to the test.

In view of these events, Director General Dammann expressed his concern in the Reich Ministry of the Interior at the end of May 1930 that there were now "opponents of vaccination [...] in all parties" and that a “discussion of the vaccination law in the Reichstag would lead to the introduction of a conscience” clause. 55 Skeptical voices were also heard in the medical authorities. The Reich Health Office referred to the critical "attitude of the population", so that President Carl Hamel pleaded for "a certain relaxation of the compulsory vaccination" in order not to provoke even "more radical resolutions" 56 and thus fundamentally call the smallpox vaccination into question place. Hamel's demand summed up the outcome of the debate. Formally, the state's obligation to vaccinate continued to apply, but in practice coercive measures were suspended. Doctors and authorities should now “by giving advice […] persuade the parents to voluntarily vaccinate their children” 57, as the Prussian Minister for Public Welfare put it. A district administrator from Aurich commented with concern on this development with the observation that the doctors in the vaccination centers have since been exposed to severe hostilities, indeed "the entire compulsory vaccination has been called into question" 58 . The director of the Hygienic Institute at the University of Jena was also appalled by the "relaxation of the obligation to vaccinate". A "defense against anti-vaccination efforts" has since been impossible, so that the "German people [...] must first be hit hard by smallpox again" before "reasonable considerations in this area become accessible" 59.

The subsequent discussions about the forms and consequences of state vaccination policies, which were triggered by the Lübeck scandal, also had fundamental dimensions. This debate focused on three things: firstly, the risks of medical progress, secondly, the social responsibility and liability of the medical profession, and thirdly, the limits of the state's claim to power over the bodies of its citizens. And it was precisely these discussions that were to determine the time after the "seizure of power".

…

On the one hand, vaccinations promised the end of old fears of epidemics that kept Europe in suspense well into the 20th century. On the other hand, it also fueled new fears: concerns about side effects and vaccination accidents or the fear of a rigid vaccination regime to which small children in particular were exposed.

Vaccination in the "Third Reich" can therefore be understood as forced modernization and individualization against one's will. The worsening hygienic state of emergency, the increasing migration movements, the return of wartime epidemics all increased the attractiveness of vaccination protection in the Reich. Added to this was the lack of doctors and medicines, so that more and more Germans almost inevitably had to take their immunization into their own hands and in this way found their “preventive self”.