False premise. Your immoral choice poses a direct and deliberate threat to other people’s bodies.
False dichotomy. Flawed premise. Not immoral or at least not by the people you are alluding to.
By now, it should be a given that we know "the vaccine" or most masks don't prevent people from getting covid or passing it along.
Anyhow, the false dichotomy part is, you didn't include all the possible responses that could have occurred, instead you seem to default to the responses that were illegally mandated by government legislating by executive branch edicts as being beyond judgement. They aren't.
If people that owned a PRIVATE business wanted to tell people everyone has to wear a mask and/or be vaccinated and made that abundantly clear, people could elect to go there or not. No threats, no choices taken away.
On the other hand, if people that owned a PRIVATE business didn't care if you and other customers wear a mask or took the "vaccines" and made that abundantly clear, people could make that choice. No threats. No choices taken away.
In both instances above, private businesses and their customers get a choice, nobody threatening anyone. Government doesn't then create a fight where they interject themselves into private lives and private business or show favor their cronies by calling some businesses "essential" and telling others they must shutdown.
Instead what did happen, is government, not the owners of the businesses in many cases made the choices for PRIVATE business and even went so far as trying to use terms like "lockdown", "new normal" as if they weren't tyrannical concepts.
There's the deliberate threat, you tried to hang on people making their own choices. Threats made. Choices taken away.