“I suggest that building herd immunity the natural way is less risky than doing it with poorly tested vaccines.”
I duly acknowledge your suggestion but politely disagree. Vaccines are designed to achieve immunity in individuals without making the vaccinated person critically ill, which would seem to be a major advantage over natural infections which tend to do that in the elderly and otherwise clinically vulnerable.
You say the vaccine is “poorly tested” but the MHRA (which is responsible for scrutinising the studies and approving it) politely disagrees. Whom to believe? Hmmm.
In the end we seem to have conflicting opinions on how to proceed. It’s a complex practical decision necessitating a balance of projected benefits and risks. For the moment, I’m inclined to favour the decision of the relevant experts and officials, at least until contrary evidence emerges. You may disagree, for personal reasons. That’s your choice. You may be relieved that the vaccine isn’t going to be mandatory.