which is fine, i think this is a valid position to take.
The invalid position is to prevent others from isolating you (who have this position) - for example, by mandating a vaccine passport for certain types of services or activities. You cannot take the position of wanting to protect yourself from u-u risk of vaccines, _and yet_ also continue consequence free life.
My issue is the conceptual mistake of ignoring the "unknown unknown" risks you impart on others when you accept one set of "unknown unknowns" yourself. It is a sort of hypocrisy that allows you to dodge the shame of a private decision.
In the end, when rejecting this vaccine, you have to fully own the "shameful aspect":
Taking the vaccine is an act many are taking on behalf of others, and in doing so, accept a private risk for a public good. We ought rightly praise this.
Rejecting the vaccine is a rejection of the priority of this public good which many ought regard as shameful.
Personally, were I so inclined to reject it, I'd simply say: "I do not care about society so much" -- and it would be true -- "shame me all you like, who cares". But the latent hypocrisy here and doublethink makes me believe many are unwilling to say this -- because they dont believe it -- and hence my issue.
You do not know the u-u risk of covid for precisely the same reasons you do not know the u-u risk of the vaccine: they are both on the same timeline.
You also do not know the aggregate u-u risk to others: asymptomatic spread, modalities of spreading, etc.
The aggregate u-u compound the individual u-u of covid. Eg., suppose long-covid occurs at a higher rate than supposed, has a longer lasting impact, has a more severe neurological impact.... then this compounds the u-u risk on spreading (eg., suppose that asymptomatic spread is more severe...).
All you're saying by declining the vaccine is that you care more about the u-u risk to yourself.