It's a question of what should be normalized, when it comes down to it. The policy question of "should all restrictions be used" could be answered "yes, slow the spread" or "no, we should add more treatment capacity". A like question would be "should we widen the roads to prevent traffic", and that could be answered "yes, everyone should be able to get their car on the road" or "no, we should invest in transit and density instead". Both questions have similarly broad and complex societal implications within their answers, in what's being valued ethically and who shoulders the burden for those values. Collective versus individual and other such questions.
What vaccination - and really, the mRNAs specifically - provided was a policy option that wouldn't have been there in a past time: put a shot in everyone's arm ASAP and then lower restrictions in hopes of restoring the economy quickly. And like with every new tech, many of us were quite eager to jump on board and get on with it, while this person was prepared to question that. By their own testimony they otherwise didn't doubt the virus or other restrictions.
What the pandemic as a whole accomplished was a pop quiz on societal fitness. It tested things that hadn't been tested in a long time. The sense of "nothing is normal anymore" is related to this, because we've just been asked if our norms are any good, actually. And the particular frenzy of the USA suggests that no, they aren't, not in this instance. South Africa has been subjected to such tests much more frequently in its recent history - and it did not really have the same policy option since it was a latecomer to vaccination. It stands to reason that it would embrace a more measured approach.