> "We don't know the long-term effects" -> triggering an immune response is extremely quick in terms of effects. Any issues (eg the highly unlikely potential cl

> "We don't know the long-term effects" -> triggering an immune response is extremely quick in terms of effects. Any issues (eg the highly unlikely potential clotting issue in Astra-Zeneca) are actually identified quickly. To flatly disregard long-term effects seems quite premature. The adjusted risk for narcolepsy in younger people, following exposure to adjuvanted A(H1N1) pandemic vaccine (Pandemrix) in 2009 for example, seemed to be "increased 14 times during the first year after vaccination, three times elevated the second year" [1]. Regarding the current vaccines, Pfizer informed the FDA, that "long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccine in participants 5 to <12 years of age will be studied in 5 post-authorization safety studies, including a 5-year follow-up study to evaluate long term sequelae of post-vaccination myocarditis/pericarditis" [2]. > "Just vaccinate the people at risk" -> we don't really know who they are, particularly in young people. We also don't really know who is at risk of getting vaccine-related side effects, particularly in young people. A pre-print study from University of California "suggests that boys aged 12 to 15, with no underlying medical conditions, are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid over a four-month period" [3]. This is not a fact, but definitely a call for further studies. > "This was rushed" -> Actually, it wasn't. DARPA had promoted mRNA vaccine research for years before Covid-19 From my perspective, people seem to be mostly concerned with rushed clinical trials, not prior research. Scientists repeatedly told the public that, despite the speed, "the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines currently in use have been rigorously tested" [4]. "But, for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety. A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial" [5]. Did it only happen at several sites in Texas? We don't really know. But it seems to be a valid concern. [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pds.4788 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pds.4788 [2] https://www.fda.gov/media/153409/download https://www.fda.gov/media/153409/download [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r... [4] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-clot-idUSL1N2MF1OE https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-clot-idUSL... [5] https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635