It's quite charming to watch someone attempt to justify what is ultimately a philosophy of "if I want it enough, then it's morally excusable." Especially in this case when WHO data makes it clear that between 91 - 93% of people who contract SARS-COV2 remain totally asymptomatic and 99% of those who suffer severe reactions (including death) are the very old & frail, the very sick, and the obese (whose levels of inflammation make them particularly susceptible to complications from practically every illness). One’s risk of adverse reaction to SARS-COV2 is thus very small indeed — and not at all what the sensation-dependent mass media would lead one to conclude.

Therefore what the writer is really saying is "because I've been scared out of my wits by sensationalist media reportage, haven't bothered to read the actual clinical studies & look at the WHO data, and I really really really want something to save me, then basically whatever is required to make me feel safer is morally excusable."

It's a totally understandable position, but intellectually indefensible and a sad indication of how much ordinary people rely on highly misleading mass media reportage for their understanding of the world. As always, the take-away is: read the studies, analyze the data yourself (many studies contain basic statistical errors that lead to erroneous conclusions), then think about what the data is really telling us. Gawping at mindless nonsense from the mass media is never helpful, and if one is concerned about moral posture it’s surely a mistake to begin with assumptions that are based on content generated primarily with the intention of grabbing eyeballs at any cost.