Folks can legitimately argue about the health risks of a vaccine, or even if the vaccine itself is relatively harmless, about the decision to take it being unduly risk averse, due to the impact of coronavirus being much exaggerated, but I don’t think it helps to conflate health and liberty objections to the vaccine: The intrinsic right to personally reject the vaccine without being required to explain or justify one’s decision could be lost in the fog of debate about health risks, with those who wish to read implied consent into this participation - (“I would take the vaccine but…”, as opposed to “I will not take the vaccine period. And I refuse to take it “to protect others”. That is asking too much of me. My conjoined twin is the only one who can make the case for such an intrusive request”). Genuinely health motivated advocates of the vaccine could demonstrate their good faith by starting their plug with a commitment to choice in the matter. Separation of health and liberty objections to it would have the added advantage of keeping the latter out of the net of social media censorship (on the ostensible grounds of misinformation) with which the former are threatened. What do others think?