I legitmately am asking the question looking for a reasonable answer. I honestly have no idea what the logical reasoning is. And while it doesn’t impact me, it also wouldn’t impact me if my employer said “we won’t hire women” or “you must own a home to work here”, but it doesn’t make those requirements good or right. Heck, we don’t drug test anymore. I’m just trying to find the rationale other than virtue signaling or rooting out non-conformity.
A trial balloon of control.
If they can mandate a vaccine for a disease that 99.95% of people under 65 survive, what will they mandate next?
There is no reasonable answer.
Back early on when it looked like the vaccines might actually provide sterilizing immunity indefinitely, and there might actually be some community-level value to higher vax rates, they got this in their thick heads, but weren't ready/able to coerce yet (it at least had to be widely available to all) - but they put the idea in their pockets for later.
Then, over time, we've learned that there's borderline zero community-level benefit (for the reasons you mentioned), BUT:
1. They haven't gotten it back out of their thick heads that there is next to no community-level benefit from higher rate of vaccination; and/or...
2. They are butt-hurt that their previous coercive tactics didn't work, and so going nuclear with it.
In other words, they're like bad parents that have been trying to get little Johny and Jane to eat their bread, but then after they find out "oh the bread isn't that good for them after all," now it's become about "principle" for them, and so they still need little Johny and little Jane to eat their bread... Or else they let little Jonny and Jane win and that sets a bad precedent for later.
Problem is, our government isn't our parents.