The connection is made by mentioning the two concepts - listening to scientists and caring for others - in the same (short) sentence as though there is a relationship between the former and the latter.

I am afraid the intended relation may have been "stubborn and egoist"¹. (The relation would be anterior to the two terms, it would be within that alleged profile.) After all, my friend, the poster is convinced they are babies...

(¹So, logically, as you are reasoning, the poster formulated, in a deontic context, "▫¬S ∧ ▫¬E".)

Edit: of course, when I wrote «was not connecting them», I meant "in a non-syntactic relation (causal etc)".

there is nothing selfish about giving priority to your own health over health of stranger, it's just basic self preservation, and that's assuming these vaccines would slow the spread, which they clearly don't, same as they don't stop you from getting infected, same as they don't stop you from having symptoms, so they can be hardly called vaccines

even if they would slow down spread I'm not going to risk my own health with dangerous vaccine against something which ain't dangerous to me (not drinking, not smoking, exercising, having very healthy weight) to help irresponsible people living irresponsible lifestyle as if it wasn't enough my insurance money being wasted on them

I am sure you will not have misunderstood "interpretation of" with "subscription to".

Anyway, you are inserting weak ideas into your statements, such as that «ain't dangerous to me». Are you sure? The first exception that comes to mind is that # that acted as a superspreader in the first epicenter in Italy in early 2020 during a marathon.