Is there an Appeal Against Authority fallacy?

But can we not provide examples that show that Person 1 and Person 2 are reasoning in the same way but from different biases?

Person 1: I believe that the covid jab is safe and effective because the authorities always tell the truth.

Person 2: I don't believe that the covid jab is safe and effective because the authorities never tell the truth. 

But that isn't the bias/error applied to the appeal to authority. It is not that "authorities always tell the truth;" it is "this is true because this person says so (who is an authority)."

Regardless, in your example, person #1 is making a (demonstrably) false statement rather than committing a fallacy. Their conclusion would be correct if their premise was correct (that "the authorities always tell the truth" - assuming that the unwritten premise is also true that the authorities said the COVID jab was safe and effective). Their error is much more serious than a fallacy; it is akin to a worldview. Likewise, person #2 is making a demonstrably false statement as well.

So yes, they are making the same class of reasoning error in your examples.

But there has to be an underlying reason for the argument being true because it is said by an authority right? The person appealing to authority must believe that authorities are always correct otherwise why would they use the argument? What rationale do they have for appealing to an authority if they don't believe authorities are always correct?

With the appeal to authority , the fallacy is in thinking that one can justify something being true just because an authority says so. The fact that someone may tend to lack skepticism for authority (or be overly skeptical) is a different issue... more of a personalty trait combined with a lack of critical thinking.

Thanks, Bo, I see your argument now although I think we might quibble over the definition of authority. I believe what is understood by authority is "recognised (by the mainstream) authority" so someone might reject what a "recognised authority" says simply because they are that but even if we agree on "recognised authority" I'd also agree people don't tend to say outright that they reject what the recognised authority says simply because they are that, they'd give a reason and that is where the logical fallacy applies - if it does because, of course, they may give a valid reason for rejecting what the recognised authority says even if they are guided more by their inclination to disbelieve the authority rather than the evidence and it is simply a happy case of the evidence and their inclination to disbelieve aligning. Similarly, although slightly differently, a person who tends to always believe the authorities may appeal to an authority for their argument which happens to be valid even if it's believed only because it's stated by the authority.

OK, so now I veer off logical fallacies to critical thinking in general so I hope you will indulge that discussion but if not, fair enough.

First, I put forward a quote I just came across from psychologist, Carole Wade, that I find most pertinent.
“People can be extremely intelligent, have taken a critical thinking course, and know logic inside and out. Yet they may just become clever debaters, not critical thinkers, because they are unwilling to look at their own biases.”

Purely as a part of an illustrative example of an argument, you put forward:
" ... the medical community at large overwhelmingly agree that COVID vaccines are safe and effective ..."

While you are only putting it forward for illustrative purposes I tend to infer that you believe that the covid vaccines are safe and effective because of the fact of the medical community at large agreeing on the claim. My argument against this argument is that it matters not who or how many agree on anything, what is absolutely critical is the absence of contradictory evidence - this goes back to my answer on my question on critical thinking where I state that one of the two fundamental rules of critical thinking is: Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong. If there is no evidence contradicting an hypothesis and there is a reasonable amount at least supporting it if not favouring it over any other then that's what testifies to its validity. If, on the other hand, there is contradictory evidence it makes no difference who or how many adhere to the hypothesis.

So, assuming you do believe that the covid vaccines are safe and effective, Bo, my questions to you are:

--- Have you followed any lines of enquiry suggesting the vaccines are not safe and effective and, if so, why did you reject any information that may have seemed to suggest they weren't?

--- Without following any particular lines of enquiry, has any evidence simply come your way that challenges the claim that the covid vaccines are safe and effective?

I am not interested in debating COVID vaccines.

Fair enough, Bo.