Sars-cov-2 infection also has unknown long term effects. Why do you think they are less risky than the vaccine ones? Or you assume you'll very unlikely to get infected.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the overall authoritarian approach to public health in the West (see also: fluoride in water; harmless, but unnecessary and immoral). So I can sympathize with people who are uncomfortable with a vaccine mandates, particularly nowadays that the issue is politicized and is no longer "just" about public health.
But all that said, I suspect a lot of people who claim to have evaluated the risks are really just rationalizing an emotional decision.
My behaviour is also better for society in terms of reducing the R. Even if I were to get Covid, since I go out so rarely it's unlikely I would ever go outside during a symptomatic phase.
What I'm doing for example:
1. WFH.
2. Order everything in.
3. Go see family only when infection rate is reasonably low.
4. Do sports outside.
5. Go to gym only at times when there's very little traffic and cases per day seems reasonable to me.
And trust me I do believe Covid19 is really bad, but I don't like vaccines either based on information I've gathered.
Keeping my R lower than 1 or even 0.5, I can also live guilt free. Many vaccinated people have R larger than 1.
There probably is some sort of hole which I'm not considering and it's mainly unknowns why I even believe it to be 1%. If there were no holes I'd believe it to be near 0%.
There's people who go to office, are around other people 40+ hours a week, then come to home to large families, have children that went to school. Offices, schools, things like these probably have the most spread.
Even with a vaccine that has 90% efficacy for preventing infection they would be exposed to the virus more than 10x that I am, and so would have higher chance of getting infected.
I know some studies calculated efficacy from hours spent in a high risk situation.