> Or is my premise or conclusion flawed, especially because I missing prerequisite knowledge? One obvious flaw I can point out in your reasoning is that you ar

> Or is my premise or conclusion flawed, especially because I missing prerequisite knowledge? One obvious flaw I can point out in your reasoning is that you are mixing tried and tested technology with new ones. While mRNA and DNA based COVID-19 vaccines are based on new technology and perhaps their long-term impact is not yet fully known or understood (and need to be studied), there are many other vaccines based on the older, more widely used and studied bio-technology (e.g. vaccines using inactivated virus). The older vaccine biotech have been studied for, and perfected over, more than half a century. So even if the efficacy of vaccines created with older tech maybe purportedly lower (not really) than the vaccines based on newer biotech, you can be relatively sure that they are safe. Your concern about the long term impact of newer mRNA and DNA based vaccines may be justified. But that shouldn't extend to the vaccines based on the old, tried and tested and well-understood popular tech that has successfully been used in other older vaccines for decades now. (Yes, even the COVID-19 vaccines based on older biotech need to be studied. But because of the decades of data we already have, we can be reasonably predict that nothing biologically unexpected will happen. And so most of the long-term studies of these older biotech vaccines are more focused, with fewer parameters, to determine how long their efficacy lasts. With the newer mRNA and DNA vaccines though, the long-term study will have more parameters to study and more diligently observe if some thing unexpected may occur in the future.) So all said and done, even if the prevalence of the epidemic is low in your rural area, it is much better and safer for you and your community to get vaccinated, than remain unvaccinated. It just takes one undetected case to spread it to others.