So far, there hasn't been nearly the same amount of public scrutiny as with your average vaccine, either. Sure, people have taken in record numbers, but we have far less information about long-term effects than usual. And certainly, there have been extraordinary incentives to push vaccination, along with extraordinary mismanagement of the pandemic in general.
The difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated isn't that one is more ethical or risk-averse than the other. It's a difference in estimation of where the most risk resides: in the disease, or in our management thereof.
The eyes of the world have been glued to this. People actually know the different "brands" of vaccines. Tabloids have discussions on them and their side effects … the scrutiny and expectations from the public seem extremely high, so I’m not sure why you think anyone involved in this could afford to no be very tough and detail oriented in the scrutiny of this vaccine.
This seems like a deeply weird worldview that doesn’t in any way match up to reality. Your statement seems highly implausible and just makes no sense. Do you have any concrete evidence to back it up?
the vaccines came out last year, there hasn't even been a long term yet.
mrna vaccines are definitely new science, unless you can point me to another mrna vaccine that has been distributed to the public at this scale?
This tells you nothing about the predictability of the practice of the science. It also cannot be used to gild by association anything that wishes to be marketed as a "vaccine".
A couple of people have died, I'd call that a long-term adverse effect. Presumably way less people than would otherwise have died from Covid, so not to say you shouldn't get vaccinated. But to claim there are no known long-term adverse effects is wrong.
Long-lasting but quickly appearing adverse effects, like death, are pretty well understood and are calculated in.
“Vaccine” is a word like “chair.” It tells you what it does, not what it is made out of.
That isn’t how it works. A word means what people understand it to mean.
But…semantics. Whatever.
The main issue that the parent comment touches on is that this is a new process for developing a vaccine and it isn’t honest to compare this to vaccines we’ve been giving people for decades.
There is a heck of a lot we don’t know. People are intuitive and they sense this. They aren’t anti science, but they do know when they are being sold something in a less than honest way.
Their definition seems pretty close to that of Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+vaccine
> a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease
But to be fair, at this point, I don't know why we discuss mRNA vaccines, there's been traditional vaccines available for people to take as well such as J&J and Novavax. So even if you don't want to take risk with mRNA since its a newer mechanism to use for vaccines, one can take J&J or Novavax instead.
Novavax I don't think is available yet.
There has, however, been evidence of long-term effects of catching COVID in some cases.
It is pretty obvious which option to take with the currently available evidence.