Maybe (some) people "broke the rules" because they made a reasoned and balanced decision that "the rules" were nonsensical?
Masks is a good example. I have spent a number of years in a technical environment where I must advise on mask use. The surgical face coverings in use for COVID are not allowed for protection from silica dust or asbestos because they would have been ineffective.... both of which are larger in size than a virus, and of course they leak around the edges not being face-fitted. Anyone who had any proper understanding of respiratory protective equipment knew that the loose "masks" recommended were basically pointless. Even where masks or a suitable type specified, such masks must be donned and worn correctly (including being clean shaven) and replaced regularly to actually deliver the theoretical level of protection.
No, requiring masks was a fear tactic- as the minutes of the government unit tasked with "nudging" the population into taking the siutation seriously enough showed. People were not scared enough, so they brought in a visibile symbolic reminder then scared people into (a) using it and (b) ostracising those who didn't. They were very effective ifrom the progaganda point of view- and the fear still remains.
And this is why trust was eroded.
Hmmm, that's a great theoretical position, but it assumes that the mandated treatment is effective. Which was at best debateable in thie case, and the control measures for dissenters were overly draconian in some jurisdictions. The tyranny of majority (mob?) opinion always needs to be guarded against, especially where emotions run high.
The problem with this argument in the COVID scenario is that it falls down when you look at the risk profiles of COVID and efficacy of the vaccine. It was a disease which caused very little harm to children, and indeed the risks of the vaccine were probably higher than that of the disease unless you were elderly and/or had some specific medical conditions. So doubtful that universal (vs targetted) vaccination was appropriate.
The other issue is that unlike the vaccines for the diseases you cite, the COVID "vaccine" was not a proper sterilising vaccine in that vaccinated people could still catch the condition and pass it on. The same is not the case with something like measles vaccine which stops the transmission by vaccinated people, and so achieves herd immunity, and it's that herd immunity which protects those who cannot safely have the vaccine, e.g. smallpox is contraindicted in persons with immune-related skin conditions like eczema. There's also the issue of "original antigenic sin" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin) which is cited as being relevant to COVID.
I had the initial Astra-zenica vaccine, but I had odd side efffects after the first jab- I am menopausal, but it caused a period. Although the govt at the time denied that was a side effect, the (female) nurse who gave me the second jab in the course admitted that in her experience it was a common side effect in women. Eventually it was admitted to be a side-effect, but they said "rare" and don't know why..... so, a vaccine that does not prevent spread, for a condition which is not particularly problematic for most of the populaiton, causes a very noticable side-effect that they cannot explain and initially denied.
I didn't have any more jabs. (I'd had COVID anyway in the first wave before it was recognised). Trust gone.
COVID was a complex situation which wasn't handled well- and indeed wasn't handled in line with the established UK govt emergency procedures for a pandemic. We got poor/flawed modelling and an increasing level of control which was at best questionable. We went vaccine and PPE mad- some people and companies made a LOT of money out of it. We created divides in society, ran up a huge debt and left a legacy of distrust and disadvantaged children. Trust in "the experts" and institutions was squandered and lost.
There were some positives- routine use of Teams for example- but the the legacy overall I believe was harmful.
GC