[alexpw]

The long-term safety is an angle that sounds reasonable, but isn't, and is used as an anti-vax talking point. A doctor is expected to know better.

First, historically, no vaccine has caused adverse effects beyond about 2 months. Second, millions have been vaccinated for nearly 9 months already. Third, the mRNA vaccine is metabolized in the body and leaves no trace of itself past 11-14 days. Fourth, it is not a daily medication.

A reasonable analogy of drinking a beer and being worried the after effects might hit you a year after the fact, because it's untested, is obviously approaching absurd.

[trentnix]

Objections over long term safety are absolutely reasonable due to historical precedent (see the Polio vaccine) and because the litmus test of “peer-reviewed” research is the standard the parent I responded to set. There exists no “long term” research of mRNA vaccines from which to draw conclusions (another reason why the “peer-reviewed science” standard for truth is fundamentally flawed). I don’t think concerns over long-term danger is a strong argument (which is one reason I chose to be vaccinated) but it is absolutely reasonable.