> Is there even any proposed mechanism that would give rise to long term effects (that show up months or years later) from this vaccine? The whole goal of a va

> Is there even any proposed mechanism that would give rise to long term effects (that show up months or years later) from this vaccine? The whole goal of a vaccine is to induce a long term effect (a change in your immune system). Should we just assume it can only have desireable long term effects? If some treatment caused (for example) a tiny cancer to form internally, and only be diagnosable years later, what are the odds that we would ever understand the connection (let alone in the first couple years of that treatments use)? And that's for something obvious like cancer. What about weird new ailments, like strange allergies, or anything mental health related? This is why I've never been able to buy the argument that "no vaccines cause long term adverse effects". I can buy that we've never succeeded at linking the two, but that doesn't give me the same warm fuzzies. Other than that, do things only go wrong in ways that we can predict? How many of us have seen our own (or our colleagues) code changes lead to unexpected results that we would only understand after the fact? Even in codebases that we wrote ourselves, let alone in an enormous legacy codebase. My own prediction is that most things that do go wrong weren't something that we envisioned happening beforehand, otherwise we wouldn't have done them in the first place. Of course there are high profile counterexamples of this, but I would expect them to be the exception. I don't have the same faith in the speed of our collective knowledge building abilities that some people do. We accomplish amazing things eventually, but the road there is strewn with the wreckage of prior attempts. This isn't to say I think people shouldn't get vaccinated, just that they should beware of hubris in attempting to force everyone else to.