Libertarian Institute.org has given a tremendous presentation detailing the limits of the common law, with respect to US constitutional matters, but the same jurisprudential principles apply to other common law countries with a written constitution, such as Australia. The point made is that the doctrine of precedence, Stare Decisis, a Latin phrase meaning literally, “let decisions of the court stand,” usually is a principle that allows wrong decisions to stand, and the common law system is slow and grinding, so the decisions take many years to get reviewed, and then, often, wrongly. That is the fault of the existing common law system that conservatives salivate over, seldom having practical reality about law. (I studied a few years law in Florida before military service, never reaching the bar, failing my finals.)
The main US case dealing with pandemic law is Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), which courts relied on to resolve disputes about religious freedom, abortion, gun rights, voting rights, the right to travel, and many other issues. However, the decision was meant to be very narrow, upholding the state’s power to impose a nominal fine on an unvaccinated person. Its ratio, or main decision, never meant to support any wider claim for mandatory vaccination, and the decision should have been read relevant to the facts of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), but was not, as detailed below. My view is that law is the inevitable slave of politics, not the white knight that most conservatives think it is. It delivers, almost always, decisions the ruling elites want. Not always though, sometimes there are hiccups, such as the recent Federal Court decisions against the Biden vaccine mandates, which the regime simply ignores! But that is in lower courts, and we have yet to see what the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) will do. Remember, this court denied even the position of standing, the right to be heard, to the state of Texas over the electoral fraud issues.