The moral obligation is to avoid infecting others, leading to illness and the threat of death. Now I will grant you that there is a sliding scale of culpability, from knowingly and intentionally infecting others, to unknowingly but carelessly infecting others (the person who doesn't get tested but continues to mingle with others while sick, for example), to infecting others without any reason to suspect that one might do so (the asymptomatic carrier, for example). But by vaccinating we have an opportunity to reduce the likelihood that we will infect others.
I did take some classes in epidemiology as an undergraduate. It is antiscience to continue to claim that asymptomatic transmission is a reasonable risk. It is not often the case that it is a reasonable risk, but even more so as it has been well validated that asymptomatic transmission has never been and could not be a driver of this pandemic.
But I don't think that lets us off the hook entirely, as it can be demonstrated statistically that higher vaccination rates mean lower death rates, and we have the opportunity to put ourselves on either side of that equation.
This is an example of a particular-universal barrier violation. If all other vaccines did lower death rates, then it still wouldn't be the case that this one does. And there have been plenty historically that increased death rates directly and perhaps some that have done so indirectly - even when the government isn't doing unethical human experimentation... like with syphilis.
And that is why your moral opinions sound like they are read from government pamphlets, it is a symptom of propaganda and bad thinking to generate a universal to try to prove a particular.
But as for statistics, I earned some 250 credits before obtaining my Bachelor's, and about half were in data analysis, so let's bring up some data issues.
Let's all quickly remember the lockdowns, which according to the RAND Corporation's working paper killed more people (and continue to kill people) than they saved. So, is it the case that those who complied with these lockdown orders have moral culpability for the deaths of these people? After all, these deaths were preventable - if only people disobeyed the health authorities. Or should we not have a multi-faceted impact calculus, but just listen blindly to the government as being the sole arbiter of values?
These same authorities, mind you, who broke federal law by unilaterally altering the data methods for COVID pandemic statistics? Under the legal information quality standards, the death rate is around 24 times less (according to some studies, it's hard to tell exactly due to the seeming incapacity of the government health bureaucrats to maintain consistent and comparable data sets over time.) And why, even after more than a year, has there been a failure to submit the proper oversight paperwork? I guess verifying information quality isn't necessary when dealing with a pandemic?
And who deleted repositories of early COVID data because China said so? Right... these are very trustworthy authorities you implicitly appeal to.
Perhaps there is a reason why that MIT's study on mask and lockdown skepticism stated that the skeptics showed greater scientific rigour and greater data literacy than those who followed the admittedly deadly and overtly authoritarian government health policies - who disproportionately subscribe to naïve realism.
Why should I also subscribe to naïverealism
I would see coercion on this point as immoral. But that does not mean we cannot state a moral case for vaccination.
Do you actually criticize this coercion when it occurs though? Because that coercion is everywhere. I drive by government propaganda billboards all the time that exhibit this behavior you call immoral, and I've seen the animations that were given to elementary school children in this area - "hugging grandma could kill her, don't be a murderer children" alongside, of course, "digital citizenship - watch what you say."
Yes, but a moral case would actually have to be stated. Which despite all the 'we're in this together' nonsense, hasn't been given by any in authority despite their propaganda.
Why should I accept a value calculus of 'risk mitigation to save lives with biological life as the sole accepted value?' Is it wrong to value huma rights and correct deference to Holy Things over mere biological life? Is it worthwhile to put everyone in medical induced comas in sealed glass boxes to prevent the risk of death - or does human life mean more than that and are there things that make life matter? And so why should I listen to a faux moral obligation which is so blatantly antihuman as to require the severing of what is most critical of all in life. Why should I renounce compassion for my fellows to accept a faux compassion of government health policy which explicitly harmed those who require the most compassion.
It's not a sin to doubt medical advice, but it might well be sin to refuse to do one's part to protect life. It's not a matter of "go with what you've got in your heart" - after all, our hearts are notoriously unreliable - what's in our hearts may well need discernment and even challenge.
But you continually 'go with what you've got in your heart' by offering your moral opinions rather than presenting an ethical case, which I've already indicated what would constitute such a case.
And what I've asked for is what was asked of us in our basic catachesis class for entering the Church - "every imperative requires a justification, if you cannot provide a justification it's probably a sin."
