But what I’m pointing out above is the contradiction of how most of the folks worried about long term effects (and I have no idea whether this includes you specifically) seem to selectively apply this behavior strategy to only the COVID vaccine! And I personally think that one would miss out on a lot that is good and enjoyable in life by applying that strategy consistently across all decisions, but to each his own.
But for average folks that apply this caution to the Covid vaccine, I am highly skeptical that they are also applying it to all many other things in their life that could have equally high or even greater risk. (Which is why I intentionally included examples of behaviors that we know to have long term negative consequences.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29885809
Completely novel direct health interventions are in no way comparable to technological advances built on well understood foundations and methodologies for which a wealth of data exists.
Sure the process used for this particular vaccine was novel, but do you think it’s mechanism of action is so fundamentally different from other vaccines such that it is likely to have fundamentally different long-term outcomes?
It really is. Its mechanism of action is completely new and involves cell alterations and inducing protein synthesis that has never been done before and for which no long term data exists.
>Sure the process used for this particular vaccine was novel, but do you think it’s mechanism of action is so fundamentally different from other vaccines such that it is likely to have fundamentally different long-term outcomes?
I don't know, maybe it could, maybe it couldn't. The data proving otherwise doesn't exist. That's why I'm going to wait for the actual science to be done.
Which specific scientific evidence would you accept to change your opinion on this matter?
The correct question is, is there sufficient evidence that we shouldn't? You don't ever assume the confirmation of a hypothesis (in this case long term safety) when introducing something novel. That's the exact opposite of science.
My answer is: I believe in science, empirical evidence, and hypothesis testing. I'm not going to assume the hypothesis that they're safe long term is correct without empirical evidence. You don't disrupt baseline systems with something novel on the basis of faith when no empirical evidence exists. That's completely antithetical to science.
It's funny because most of your examples are great illustrations that assuming novel things are safe has disastrous consequences.