> Certainly, but you appear to agree that there's no reason to wait for those studies before getting vaccinated, which is the context this thread began in (in o

> Certainly, but you appear to agree that there's no reason to wait for those studies before getting vaccinated, which is the context this thread began in (in other words, I don't really care, except in the vague sense that they'll hopefully help us better understand physiology) I'm not making any argument about whether or not to take a vaccine based on study results. This is an argument you are having with other people and projecting onto me. I personally neither agree nor disagree with any position on the subject of whether or not to take a vaccine prior to "long term studies" being conducted -- as a libertarian, I believe that choice is completely up to you whether you choose to take a vaccine or not, just as I believe it should be up to you what substances you do or do not put into your body. I get the sense you have a different view and it seems like you potentially would disagree that people should have the choice to decide what goes into their bodies if you believe them not putting something in their bodies would potentially affect you. That's an entirely different debate than what this started with: what's the definition of short term vs long term when it comes to side effects. I'd still like a definitive answer with regards to your stance on the definition of short vs long term whether or not you think it applies to your more general arguments.