Are you aware that no particular vaccine is infallible due to variable factors influencing them?
However the majority of those v accinated are helped by them, and most do not contract the diseas for which they are intended.
Just as when a person is treated by any medication for the specified use, they still may not respond positively.
Having indicated the above, perhaps you will understand that the beest approach to said treatments are, how did you say it? Right, common sense. Get the vaccine.
Whether choosing one of the vaccines or not, most people are trying to do what they think is right. Slandering others of differing opinions as murderers or suicidal doesn't come from a place of love. Arguing for a position solely because it is the position espoused by media, government, and corporate interests is by its nature an argument founded from ethos (an argument from authority). Arguing from fear and threat of consequence is an argument from pathos (feeling). I know many that would prefer arguments premised in logos (logic and pragmatism), or at the very least from positive pathos. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the three ways to convince someone of the truth of something and I believe with enough patience and honest intention from both sides that the truth will shine through even the darkest clouds of fear and doubt.
Based on the information that people trust, everyone feels like they are drawing logical conclusions. But not everyone trusts the same information, not everyone draws the same conclusions, and not everyone will agree with the soundness of each others' conclusions.
There are many facets to this topic, but if one is adamant that an experimental vaccine is unclean to them and that from a sincere religious perspective that they should not partake of the vaccine, even if others do, what right does a government have to deny someone that right? What kind of government denies those rights?