IMO these vaccines straddle the line when it comes to social contract.
To date, there's been no carve outs for those who cannot receive the vaccine. Pregnant women, children 5 upwards, immuno-compromised etc have all been cleared to get the vaccine if they want it. There's no real "protect those who can't receive it" argument as yet.
Also, the vaccines have been reported to be only 39%-80% effective against Delta infection. Such low numbers means vaccination isn't going to stop ongoing transmission, even in vaccinated populations. The herd immunity argument is out the window.
"Do it for the person next to you" isn't as relevant when infection protection is only 60% (mid point of above band). Everyone in society is going to contract it at some point, vaccinated or not.
Delta appears to also transmit easily from a vaccinated person.
Again, this reduces the "do it for the person next to you" argument.
The main benefits of these vaccines are for the individual. Unless you are already extremely ill, your personal choice to vaccinate will give you the protection you need when you are inevitably infected. Whether the person next to you is vaccinated or not isn't extremely relevant here.
As such, IMO it's much closer to something that should be left as a personal choice. Like the annual flu shot.
I'm not sure I see enough societal benefit to coerce/force vaccination in this case, taking the choice out of the individual's hands. Society accepts a certain level of behaviour from people that isn't necessarily good for them (smoking, drinking, soft drugs, fatty foods, sugar). This one is close to that line IMO for the reasons above.
