[gyzmau]

To be fair I am not very confident either in the mRNA.

I am very sad than only China used the inactivated virus way. I would like to have the same known technology developed by another country (But yes that statement is totally bias).

Beside I am following as well the development of Pasteur-Gsk vaccine using a way with a higher degree of confidence (already in use in commercialized vaccine).

Personally if I can I wont take either mRNA from pfizer/Moderna or adenovirus from Oxford Astrozeneca.

If you want here another of my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25285249#25286854

[xiphias2]

I read it, but still don't understand your main concern with the mRNA vaccine. It's unproven, and we don't know the long term side effects in human, but from all data that we have already about the technology it looks safe. You can wait, but I'm an asthmatic person who has problems with breathing when there's air pollution, and my parents are over 70, so for me and them it looks like it's the safer way to live longer

[gyzmau]

My bad, I didn't make difference between population. I was mostly talking about ppl without pre-conditions/risks. In your case I would do it too, And for your parent too (Mine has immunodeficiency so vaccine is out of the question). After I don't have like big red flag and I think, for the majority it will be fine. I am just more comfortable to use vaccine from techniques previously used on other public vaccine widely distributed. I found the move a bit quick to jump on those new technologies, especially when we still could use the "traditional" way. I agree the data look ok, but the data sample are nearly nothing compare to the total population who will get it. Good data but not that representative. But I would never say to someone to not take it.