I think?? you meant to say "should not think they are good to go"? ... and to me that's an ethical question I prefer to solve by not putting my desires first and instead spending money to support the charities and shops and individual albergues from a distance. I have purchased items this year from Ivar, and from
Wise Pilgrim, sent money to the CCOP to distribute to albergues, and sent money to individual albergues I enjoyed in particular. Every month I spend about 10% of what I would spend on the ground on a camino so that by the end of this year I had spent about 20% more on camino services and goods than I would on a regular camino trip.
Why would I go for my own sake when I can meet the tourist needs of the camino areas from a distance?
Because governments can be motivated by economic needs to allow things they would not otherwise, I will not exploit that when I have other options. Every single one of us contemplating travel has other options. "Oh, but I am sick now and maybe I won't live long enough for this bucket list item," is not IMHO, a valid reason to risk the health and safety of others.
I am certainly hopeful that my jab today will be Pfizer, and I'm hopeful that by September the data on lasting immunity will be better, but we don't have that yet.
Living in a region that depends quite heavily on US tourism to our cottage region, I would rather not receive the money if it means having to be inundated with entitled tourists. I have the same perspective on Canadian snowbirds who are happy to go stomping on economically needful areas in the US. "They need my money" is an unethical reason to grant the hall-pass.
I work on community-based health issues and we are not allowed to exploit economic need to acquire access to vulnerable populations. It's just an ethical non-starter. I'm applying the same principle to my desire for a return to Spain.