>That's why we have 32 years of study on mRNA vaccines Yes, in which they were largely viewed as non-viable and a shelfed idea at least in part due to issues l

>That's why we have 32 years of study on mRNA vaccines Yes, in which they were largely viewed as non-viable and a shelfed idea at least in part due to issues like ADE. The research here was not extremely active, nor was it done on humans to the extent it is now. >You have no basis for that. Correct, but I have no basis to believe that some unseen risk is not present too. Given that I'm not personally at risk for COVID, I think there's wisdom in waiting a couple years (at least) to see how it unfolds. And there is a basis for ADE fears, which you ignored in favor of joking about growing a spontaneous third testicle. >do you not think anyone has had a child since they were vaccinated? One child would not imply it's impossible for _some_ child to have a defect. >The data that I linked you shows otherwise? Can you point me to where this was? The 'data' is still very immature regardless. I'm sure I could source data that comes to the opposite conclusion. It's important to view these things in aggregate, not lean on the studies you agree with. Right now, I'm finding studies that disagree often, so I think waiting for the data to mature a bit is reasonable assuming I'm not harming anyone by doing so. >The infections from variants are still hundreds of times less severe in the vaccinated You missed my point here - the point is that they can still get infected, not that they aren't expressing symptoms as severely. ... Birth defects were just an example, like I said I view it as unlikely. The point is that there's a potential for unseen risk here. You've devolved into being a bit rude now, and I found your lack of skepticism tiring anyway. The data is all over the map currently, yet you seem rigid in your position - that's bad practice. You keep making arguments about the vaccines being effective at symptom reduction, but that's never been the point I'm trying to engage, since I agree with that and there is pretty conclusive data there. I will say that you can find data to the contrary (see Israel's recent stats), but mostly I'm saying that a) as someone who's already _not_at_risk_, there's arguably no net benefit to society in me taking the vaccine, so long as transmission rate reduction is largely an unknown (and even in that case, I'd prefer natural immunity) and b) there's a possibility of unforeseen and unwanted side effects / repercussions due to the vaccine - this is true despite you belittling this idea. I'm not at risk, so I don't care about minimizing it or how effective it is. There is a possibility I may be a host to transmit COVID to people at risk though, so I care about that. As of now, natural immunity looks much more enticing than vaccination for someone like me. Why are you so opposed to this? I won't be hospitalized, so you don't have to worry about me, and I presumably will spread it similarly to how vaccinated individuals will.