Carlton Supporters Club

The issue is that the data used to support both sets of numbers were used to paint a picture.

The adverse reactions to the vaccines under reported as coincidences.  Likewise the number of people significantly impacted by covid were over stated.

The vaccine companies (all) made wide sweeping shonky claims afmbout efficacy to go with it and you end up with a scenario where most people questioned what the best outcome was going to be. 

When you strip it all bare, covid was no walk in the park.  It isn't the killer it was made out to be either but it left the general public questioning what was the lesser of two evils and real doctors were silenced on the matter and it became politicised.

Where you sit in any of it is subjective and largely determined by personal choices but I saw some extremely autocratic behaviour which I'm hoping never gets repeated.

I think there is a fair bit of hindsight going on, 3 Leos. At the time, we just didn't know. Worst case scenario seemed plausible and frightening.
Science and pollies were all on the back foot and unsure, and most were doing their best.
I don't recall any vaccine manufacturer claiming 100% safety; they spoke of the potential -- albeit low -- risk for some people, hence staying in surgeries/pharmacies for 15 minutes after the innoculation before leaving. But as troubling as it was to know, there was a low risk for some folks, as there is with every medication/vaccine.
In hindsight some pollies overreacted and some under-reacted. Few got it right - in hindsight.