I'm playing the devil's advocate and I'm not very comfortable with it, but I think it' valuable to the discussion to do so.
You are oversimplying and again conflating both groups. You assume people made their mind first and then looked for experts' to support which it's not fair to a lot of them.
Let's focus on an specific case. A healthy 25 years old male living in on of those countries. If he's an skeptic and decides to make a data oriented decision, the truth is that his chance of dying or getting a severe infection was really slim and probably comparable to the odds of getting a myocarditis because of it.
Yet the media and the government, at least in my country, did not make any difference between his case and a 60 years old with hypertension. Everyone had to take their shot or be denied his right to go to a pub or restaurant.
One gets myocarditus from covid and even mild cases in healthy young people commonly show damage from covid which isn't true of vaccination. Furthermore its reasonable to suppose that decreasing chance of infection decreases chance of spread which effects your 60 year old with hypertension which probably exists in most exists in most people's peer,friend, or family group and would really rather not die.
Fair enough, but you are comparing a sure event (if you decide to get the vaccine) and a contingent one (getting covid). It's impossible to declare any of both as a clear winner. Furthermore the risk difference is negligible when compared to daily activities (like driving or making the dinner).
One of the problems here, and the source of a lot of trouble it's that sending nuanced messages it's very hard and goverments feared that being cautious could affect negatively to vaccination rates. So they took the simplistic path of presenting the vaccines as a silver bullet for everyone (and they were but in a very varying degree).
I can understand that decision but at the same time, it has thrown a lot of fair "skeptics" under the bus.
You are oversimplying and again conflating both groups. You assume people made their mind first and then looked for experts' to support which it's not fair to a lot of them.
Let's focus on an specific case. A healthy 25 years old male living in on of those countries. If he's an skeptic and decides to make a data oriented decision, the truth is that his chance of dying or getting a severe infection was really slim and probably comparable to the odds of getting a myocarditis because of it.
Yet the media and the government, at least in my country, did not make any difference between his case and a 60 years old with hypertension. Everyone had to take their shot or be denied his right to go to a pub or restaurant.