This has come up in another discussion about the pandemic and the measures against it taken by governments:

Also, asking whether those worst affected by measures of they are in favour of them is rather dishonest. Such measures are statistical, taken for the sake of the whole population in order to minimise, not simply eradicate, harm. — Kenosha Kid

A similar situation occurs whenever there's a clash between the individual and larger organization (such as the government or the medical system).

The larger organization operates in big numbers.
From its perspective, it's acceptable if a medical treatment has serious side-effects for a certain % of the population.
From its perspective, it's acceptable if a governmental measure during the pandemic leads to job loss for a certain % of the population.

For the larger organization, some losses are acceptable. It goes further: it expects that those who are that loss -- those who end up losing jobs in a pandemic because the government doesn't allow their industry to operate, or those who end up with permanent negative effects of a medical treatment -- nevertheless continue to trust the larger organization as if all was well.

So if you -- yes, you -- end up being the unfortunate one who lost their job because of the measures; if you end up being the one permanently paralyzed by the vaccine:

How do you still trust the government, the medical system?

How do you make sense of the damage that you yourself suffer, presumably for the wellbeing of others?

The government and the medical system expect you to view yourself as an expendable cog in the system. As such, how do you still trust them?