A lot of this can be contextualised by the awkward (and arguably, regrettably, failed) transition societies have had to make from hyper-individualism rooted in a neoliberal economy to suddenly needing to take collective "well-being" into account. The whole notion that vaccines are only really effective at eradicating a virus if everyone participates is understandably hard to grasp when we have been socialised to think about ourselves / our tangible loved ones all our lives. It's only normal a lot of people are going to think "why should I potentially risk my health with this vaccine" even though, rationally, the real consideration should be "if I don't take this vaccine I am actively endangering (more abstract) others." Despite its challenges, it's an important mental shift to make, I think, even if it's just for the sake of regaining your own personal freedoms.
I do understand your scepticism about the extension of the state's power. Sadly, due to the absence of any real collective spirit as I addressed earlier, the state is really the only vessel that can ensure effective measure is taken against the pandemic, either by incentivising you to take the vaccine or punishing you for not taking it. That being said, I agree it's important to remain sceptical and aware of the newfound liberties a government can take during these circumstances as, like with any crisis, it opens up opportunities for those with less humanitarian interests to take control. In Belgium, for example, we had drones surveilling people to ensure they were not violating curfew. While, again, this was done in the "best interests of society," it is easy to see how the normalisation of this new level of state control can lead to abuse later on.
TLDR: it's ok to be sceptical of increased governmental control, but taking the vaccine has little to do with that issue, in my opinion. You take the vaccine to fight the spread of a virus that kills people. Being sceptical about the new political climate COVID 19 has fostered is a different issue.