That's because it doesn't bring much to the table

Imagine this:

Rodgers: hi, I think people should get vaccinated, but I don't feel comfortable quite yet

Reporter: what would change your mind?

Rodgers: more testing and studies because I feel it went too fast and it might affect my athletic performance. Others are free to get the vaccine if they feel safe and everyone should have that choice. It shouldn't be mandated, but everyone should get it if they want to and feel safe. I don't feel the COVID is a large risk for my demographic based on the data. I don't bother people getting the vaccine or treat them differently. I am not sure why people are making a big deal about my choice and harassing me about it.

Reporter: Thanks back to in the studio.

The problem is the argument made by most were they were "afraid" of how it might impact them and felt COVID wasn't a large risk to them. Even though vaccines would help, people mentally did their gymnastics to say they didn't need them. You get it being mandated and it becomes an argument of choice. Naturally anyone given a choice but told you should do this need to do the opposite of authority to feel they are exerting choice and have some control in the matter. It's the reason why you kept hearing everyone including him telling people it's a choice and everyone who wants the vaccine should get it. They would also say things like "I think everyone should get the vaccine if they want to".

The whole problem is that reporters did ask questions like that and it results in it becoming about choice. It would turn into a harassment thing and why he played the victim because everyone bothered him to do something he didn't feel was necessary.

It's why it's impossible to really reason with such people because they can twist the narrative. We can see that the reasoning is obtuse but it don't matter because they feel satisfied with the reasoning and so do people that agree.