This is irresponsible fearmongering, and says more about how lackadaisical software engineering is towards quality control than anything else.

On the other hand, if you want to read about how software works when it actually matters, "space shuttle coding style" is fascinating.

What's irresponsible about healthy, low risk individuals waiting until all of the high risk people get the vaccines first?

If there's autoimmune issues that pop up when the scale goes from tens of thousands to hundreds of millions, I'll know about it ahead of time and be able to take the appropriate action, such as choosing a non-mRNA vaccine such as the adenovirus type from Astrazeneca.

The irresponsible thing about healthy, low-risk people not taking vaccines is that it puts high risk individuals at higher risk of catching the virus because high risk people are the ones that can't take the vaccine.

Vaccines are not 100% effective but they don't have to be. The goal here is to reduce transmission in the population to a level where the virus can no longer spread. That is only possible if enough people take the vaccine and healthy people should absolutely be in the front of that line.

This is not a purely personal choice. You have to understand that by deciding not to immunize yourself you are making a decision for everyone else.

The risk of a vaccine having negative effects is basically nil. The biggest issues historically have been around cross-contamination, not anything to do with the vaccine itself.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....

"mRNA vaccines do not affect the DNA inside the cell – the synthetic mRNA fragment is a copy of the part of the virus RNA that carries the instructions to build the antigen of the virus..."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine

This method has been in development since 1978 (when then-young Hungarian scientist Katalin Karikó started playing with mRNA in her lab in Szolnok) until today. Hundreds of mice died during the search for bugs before anyone dared to inject a human subject.

It cannot be ruled out that the whole concept of RNA vaccines still has bugs, but it is nowhere near "it compiles, ship it now!" software betas. The process is much more risk-averse.

A sunburn can change/damage your DNA.

And people take precautions to avoid it because skin cancer can result. Not sure that's the best counter example.

I'm not trying to argue that it's a "good" thing, simply that tons of things hack our DNA (there are even some studies that emotional trauma can have repercussions imprinted on our DNA) My major point is that DNA hacking/damage isn't always a life-ender. Even skin cancer is often removed without issue.

It can't fundamentally change your own DNA. The mRNA codes for a stabilized version of the sars-cov2 spike protein. Your cells then use the mRNA to build that protein. Your immune system will then build up a response. It is a terrible idea to wait for a version 2 of this vaccine. Get vaccinated or this will not go away.

Edit: nevermind

Hence my last sentence.

The beta test (clinical trials) are long over, they had it months ago.

I just thought of this analogy today. Others should correct me if I got this wrong.

If I want to use your printer (ribosomes) to print out some stuff (proteins), I don't need to send files (genetic instructions) to your computer (nucleus). I can just get on your wifi, send my files directly to your printer, and go home. Except I accidentally left the protein at your house. But none of the genetic material sticks around.

Citation?