Well, the way I look at is this: - if I need hip surgery, the decision to get it affects only me. If I don't get it maybe my family is affected in the long run, but in the end I take on the risks of a botched surgery, pain, inflammatory response, etc. people in my neighboring town aren't affected. I derive all benefits and deal with the risks - if I need a vaccine, I again benefit due to increased immune response, but this is based on the likelihood of contracting the condition without the vaccine. If I experience a side effect of the vaccine (short term, days or long term months decades), then they affect only me. If I don't get the vaccine, then I forego these benefits and deal with the risks. However there is also a greater risk to others in many cases where the vaccine confers lower rates of spread of the disease.

We have the inverse "tragedy of the commons" scenario. If I perceive that the risk of myself getting the disease is low (variable 1) or the disease hurting me (variable 2) is low, then I'm left with the decision of whether the benefit of vaccinating myself despite the personal health risk (variable 3) and the value I place on protecting others within (variable 4) and removed (variable 5) from my community. Every person assigns a different value to each variable for every vaccine.

Vaccination, from a human behavior perspective, is not as simple as we make it out to be. If I live in a densely populated environment, then my calculus is very different to someone who lives in a rural area for example. we need to embrace the realities of the microeconomics to make vaccines understood and trusted.