+2
Maybe I can shed some insight.
First, I am pro-vaccine, but anti-mandate.
Initially, the scientific community & the government sold the public on the idea I like to sum up as "Can't get it, can't spread it."
In other words the general consensus given to the public was the vaccine provided nearly complete immunity and once vaccinated, people could return to a "normal" life.
This turned out to be untrue.
Soon, the vaccinated were told they could not return to normal - they should continue distancing, isolating as much as possible, avoid gatherings & travel, wear masks (maybe even 2 or 3 at a time depending on who you were listening to) and may even require a booster in the near future.
Then it was revealed that vaccinated people could still contract the virus - in some cases in even higher viral loads than unvaccinated people and that they could spread those loads to others. So they could still carry the virus, still be contagious and be an even greater potential spreader than the unvaccinated. Then there were "breakthrough" cases - people who contracted & manifested the virus despite being fully vaccinated.
It seemed the vaccine lowered the severity of the virus for most who manifested it after being fully vaccinated, but there were still some cases where the virus took it's toll and even some rare deaths of vaccinated people from the virus (usually dependent on various health factors).
The point of all this was what we were first told about the vaccine's efficacy was wrong.
At the outset, the public was also sold the idea that the vaccine was almost completely safe.
Now, here's the crux - if what we were told about the vaccine's efficacy was wrong, then how do we know what we've been told about the vaccine's safety is not also wrong?
I'm not trying to throw doubt on the vaccine, just explaining the thought process behind WHY some people are still hesitant about getting the vaccine. And, I have to admit, there is some logic to it.