That's a nice sentiment[1], but why couch it in such an odd construction? "I took it, but here's a bunch of reasons not to" doesn't come across as an argument for equanimity and individual decision making, it comes across as an argument not to take it.
[1]: though 'include' carries a _lot_ of potential interpretations there :)
Everyone interprets arguments differently. Some reason against the vaccine may be insufficient to dissuade you, but it may dissuade another.
"I took it, but here's a bunch of reasons to not to" is THE best argument for equanimity and individual decision making; its Informed Consent. You should try to learn everything you can; the stuff the media tells you, the stuff the government tells you, the stuff doctors tell you, and even the stuff on the hard anti-vax it'll give you autism side says. Take all of it with a grain of salt, but different amounts of salt depending on the credentials and biases of the source. Sieve it through your own personal belief system. Then act to your beliefs. You'll probably be wrong, but you were already wrong before; the goal isn't to always be right, but to continually improve your ability to recognize when you're wrong.
There is no one truth to any aspect of our reality. You may actually find some compelling arguments against a belief system you once had. For example, one soft anti-vax argument I've heard recently stuck with me: that these vaccines are effectively the "kills 99.9% of germs" equivalent of ultra-fast evolving viruses, imperfect vaccines which allow both the host to live and the virus to evolve, thus creating even more vaccine resistant strains of COVID. And, maybe, at a global public health level, these vaccines are a REALLY bad idea long-term, and our efforts to save a few million people today will kill millions more in the future. Maybe. Its hard to say, but its an interesting thought.
You won't hear that from the CDC. Their bias in PR right now is: everyone get vaccinated, downplay anything negative about the vaccine, don't allow for nuance because we can't trust the public with nuance, we just need them vaccinated. That's fine! Its a legitimate goal that will almost definitely result in a lot of good. But that doesn't mean the whole truth is everything they say.
Its a common turn of phrase in modern English. Everyone talks like that. I know its in vogue right now to assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is a bot or paid shill for some agenda seeking group, and maybe many of them are. But not everyone. People really do talk this way in every day conversation.
As for mine. I got my first shot in December. Probably one of the first in my area. Got second 2 weeks after. I think everyone should get it as soon as they are comfortable with doing so. There is such a thing as being unreasonably suspicious and antivaxxers fall into that pretty easily but there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting more than emergency approval. Furthermore, private companies can definitely make it a term of employment but I am strongly against the government requiring it. I am a firm believer that everyone has the right to be a dumbass.
[1]: though 'include' carries a _lot_ of potential interpretations there :)