Sure. But there is also a bigger responsibility to oneself. To not do things that might harm themselves.
So with that conflicting forces, it becomes a matter of opinion and perception. So it becomes no longer selfish, and just common sense.
All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine. It's not common sense to avoid it. It's highly irrational. If people are really concerned with not harming themselves, they _will_ get vaccinated.
No, at some point you are trusting some external entities. You trust the information because you trust the entities that provide it.
When you say that someone else is irrational, you are doing that because that person does not share your trust. And to that person, in all probability, what you are doing might be irrational.
In the end, I think no one have the right to impose their standard of trust on to anyone else.
But I guess believe whatever you want if it makes you feel better.
Replace "research" with "stuff a bunch of people you believe say", and the situation will become much more clear.
E.g. here is a point you made that doesn't even remotely apply here:
> If you do an experiment that very few people in the world is able to replicate, because it is hard or due to lack of resources, then the rest of the world have to trust you.
These vaccines have been taken by _millions_ of people. They have been given by many different independent organizations. So yeah this doesn't even apply at all.
> The trust of people should be won, research by research, not authority by authority, and the non-requirement of mandates goes along automatically with that idea.
Essentially all the research points towards the vaccines being much much better than the disease. It's your choice to stick your head in the sand if you so wish, but no one need respect your decision. You're not somehow wise simply due to your being contrarian.
On the contrary being this naive...
Even today, in their newest letter, they are still trying to obfuscate the real situation and are certainly not apologizing for their prior stance.
At any rate, this claim that scientists are never dishonest or wrong, they just "update their beliefs" as more information becomes available, is getting very tedious. That's not what they're doing. "Science" is constantly bombarding our political leaders with wildly extreme statements delivered not just with 100% confidence, but the assertion that you aren't even allowed to disagree because it's a "scientific consensus". People read the papers and point out that they're making false assumptions or are otherwise pseudo-scientific, but they're suppressed and ignoring. Then when that "consensus" turns out to have been completely wrong a bunch of apologists appear to explain that scientists can never be wrong by definition.
Well, guess what? If a certain type of person constantly make confident statements as a group and insists reasoned disagreement is illegitimate, then is repeatedly proven to be wrong, all their statements become seen as less reliable. As a group.
> All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine.*
* : for the population cohort above approximately 50 years old or a BMI greater than 30.
For better or for worse (for society), it appears healthy-weight people under 50 making the choice to not get vaccinated on a calculus of myocarditis, menstrual complications, blood clotting, and various other longer-term risks are, in fact, not being "highly irrational"
I'd be curious to read source of the statistics you're referring to (i.e. what rates of these complications you see and how they compare to the complications of covid itself in the same age groups).