Not parent, but I think it's pretty clear (at least) mRNA vaccines have not had "[testing] similar to other medications of a similar type," because they are quite novel and the first of their kind that has been approved for widespread use. (Aka they had testing, but not as strong historical real-world testing as others)

As for the other available vaccines, I'm not as familiar, but they seem more tested (although less efficient afaik). Although they also have their risks, especially for younger people, which one may want to factor in their risk/cost analysis.

You know that before covid only two adenovirus vectored vaccines had been approved? And neither Ebola vaccines have really reached wide adoption.

> Do you have an actual threshold you think would be a reasonable amount of "testing" and a reasonable argument as to why that is an appropriate amount as oposed to just picked at random?

Personally, because the risks of the virus are so low, I'm likely going to wait until the long term safety studies are complete: Oct 2022 and Apr 2023 for Pfizer and Moderna (I forget which is which), and early 2023 for both AstraZeneca and J&J.

And if it turns out I did get the virus already, any vaccine has risk for no reward. Naturally gained immunity seems to be as good or better than vaccine immunity.

Fwiw, i think people downvoting you is unfair. I may disagree with your risk assesment, but i asked the question and you gave your answer, so it seems unfair for people to downvote you when you appear to have answered in good faith.

That said though - i'd point out that https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427 isn't solely a safety study. They are also checking things like how long the immunity lasts.