A question I pose to myself whenever someone posits something that's literally true (ie, "vaccines can cause harmful side effects) but leads them to a different

A question I pose to myself whenever someone posits something that's literally true (ie, "vaccines can cause harmful side effects) but leads them to a different conclusion than myself (ie "therefor nobody should get the jab") is "What problem are you solving for?" Vaccine mandates involve a ton of sub-decisions. Are we trying to protect the most vulnerable or the most valuable citizens? Are we willing to infringe on other rights in the name of public safety? Who are we trying to financially burden and benefit with this decision? People will always prioritize things differently than you, and "not wanting to help the opposition make a case to undermine my work" is a pretty reasonable stance to take if your goal is to advance your work. It doesn't matter if there is merit to their point if your goal is not "find all the information and use that to help inform a decision".