This would highly depend upon the trust of the people in the government issuing the mandate. In the US for example, there is a high level of distrust in the government within certain communities stemming from a history of racism and horrid treatment like the tuskegee experiments. Other exploits by the US government including MK Ultra and operation Seaspray only increase this mistrust when the government conducts secret or non-consentual testing on it's citizens. I think a better question would be, why in a modern democracy, would anyone trust the government to make the best decisions for individual health? The scientific rigor behind vaccine research is typically top notch but a mandate from a governing body about anything can be cause for concern.

Jakson Martens That's a thoughtful and historically grounded perspective, Jakson. You're absolutely right that public trust, especially in health mandates, hinges on the government's track record with transparency and ethical treatment. Incidents like the Tuskegee experiments and MK Ultra have left lasting scars, especially among communities that were directly harmed. These events serve as painful reminders of why skepticism exists, and they underline the importance of accountability and consent in public health initiatives.

Your point about the distinction between the scientific integrity of vaccine research and the political process of mandating them is also critical. The science might be sound, but how it's communicated, implemented, and enforced matters just as much. In a modern democracy, fostering informed consent and public dialogue could be more sustainable than strict mandates, particularly where trust has been historically fractured.