To GP’s point, lack of diversity in clinical trials can result in medicines that vary in efficacy and safety in the broader population. The ability to customize a therapy to an individual would help reduce the impact of this issue.
1000 years ago you probably could have said that indigenous subsaharan Africans and Americans are different subspecies of homo sapiens simply because one group has darker brown skin and lives in Africa, and one has lighter brown skin and lives in the Americas (phenotype difference + range difference is all it takes). But today the "native range" of every ethnic group is essentially global due to airplanes and immigration, so you'd probably say we're all one subspecies. But either way, the label "subspecies" conveys far less information than people sometimes assign it.
There exist even special medicine to account for genetic differences in Black people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isosorbide_dinitrate/hydralazi...
This is the angle that, for me, is suppressing my innate concern for a widescale and rapid application of a brand new immunological therapy. It's extremely targeted and feels like the future. I can imagine a day where the FDA approves the process rather than the instance of mRNA-based therapies, allowing for highly personalized treatment.
This is true. Some of the extremely rare auto-immune issues that have impacted people who have been vaccinated for specific flu viruses in, IIRC, 1976 and 2009, were thought to occur at even higher rates and severity with people who contracted the virus. So, vaccination might impact you, but likely worse the the virus itself due to the greater amount of virus in your system.
I am not a scientist, but I would expect that the mRNA vaccines would have less of a chance of having an auto-immune reaction since they contain only one of the many proteins contained in the actual virus.