Pushing back on a good idea just because it's compulsory is not logical. It's like pushing back on seat belt laws. Seat belts are almost universally considered a good idea. They save lives of the wearer who doesn't want to turn into a hamburger during a crash, and protects the people around them who have one less projectile to worry about. There are almost no down-sides to seat belt use. Yet, I know people (even in my own family) who to this day refuse to wear them, simply because They Aren't Going To Let The Man Tell Them What To Do. It seems like just a childish and immature reason to not do something when the upside overwhelms the downside.
> It seems like just a childish and immature reason to not do something when the upside overwhelms the downside.
You pretty much nail the issue: when it's 100% obvious that the upside of the policy (hopefully much less hospitalizations and death amound old people) overwhelms the downside (unhopefully more adverse side effects amoung the much younger general population), then the decision will be rational.
At the moment, I claim it's not entirely irrationnal (although clearly pessimistic) to at least feel a bit uneasy.
