Which raises a lot of questions (is "being scared" enough of a justification for refusing a law ? On the other hands, do democraticaly elected officials automatically get the right do decide what people should be "scared" about, without having any more evidence than anyone else - given that the only thing that can give evidence is time, time, and more time ?)
Questions that, unfortunately, had to be answered hastly and withouth much concerns for the unlucky ones - which, to be honest, is pretty much the theme of history, and we have been among the lucky one until now, so maybe we don't have that much to complain about.
You don't understand why someone with concerns about the safety of a vaccine might frame the problem not as the existence of a vaccine with tradeoffs other people might want to make, but rather as a political party forcing the decision on everyone? Or are you just being disingenuous? Be better.
The nuance is key. Frankly, I don't recall much in the way of nuance, I pretty much always saw concern about vaccines framed as a battle for freedom against a tyrannical political party.