You're (intentionally?) missing the point, which is that long-term effects could not have been sufficiently monitored at the time they were thrust upon the general population.

It is possible to believe the vaccines are safe, and to support their use, while still conceding this point.

> which is that long-term effects could not have been sufficiently monitored at the time they were thrust upon the general population

Sure, that'd require a time machine. Thus, we're left going "hey, what happened with every other vaccination we've ever done?" and making decisions based on that wealth of information.

People attempting to make this point like to pretend the same isn't true for not getting the vaccine. What's the long-term effect of unvaccinated people getting COVID? Do we have a 20 year safety study on going unvaccinated in this pandemic?

>Thus, we're left going "hey, what happened with every other vaccination we've ever done?" and making decisions based on that wealth of information.

Now you're being disingenuous. There is another approach, and it is the one traditionally endorsed by the medical profession: prudence.

Put plainly: the deontologically correct way of proceeding would have been to say "we don't know enough to assert the vaccines are safe", and not thrust them onto an unwilling public.

>Do we have a 20 year safety study on going unvaccinated in this pandemic?

No. This is why I am not arguing against vaccines. I am arguing against mandates.