I think the argument is that when you don't do it, a lot more people die and from a "force" perspective, the plague rats are forcing their diseases via breaths, coughs, and sneezes onto others and so that's an A or a B argument which I have underlined both A and B. Both A and B individually by themselves have similarities to government interventions. The first one (A) when you don't do it, a lot more people die is akin to not getting involved in WW2, i.e. more people would die by the US being non-interventionist. The latter point (B) the plague rats are forcing diseases via breaths, coughs, and sneezes onto others is similar to infecting someone with HIV being illegal, sneezing in someone's face being assault, blowing smoke in someone's face as assault, the primary differences with B being that (1) the victimizer forcing things onto the victim often doesn't know they are a plague rat but do behave irresponsibly and recklessly, like say, drunk driving--drunk driving is illegal because there is a probability you could end up seriously harming someone including killing them AND (2) that this is a societal, widespread affect because of a pandemic, not an individual act, multiple plague rats in a room filling it with diseases.