Skepticism of every and each human mRNA vaccine was completely warranted before we had data. That's why there were (and are) clinical trials, all of which do post-treatment data collection (some for 2 years). Exactly to get solid reliable data about effects of mRNA vaccines, exactly so that we can definitively say whether it was a good call or not, whether the continued skepticism is warranted or not. (Or more precisely, how much skepticism is warranted.)
Appropriate amount of skepticism about long-term (5+ years) consequences is still warranted, though as time goes on that amount is seriously decreasing.
If the current clinical trials find potential negative consequences, that hardly helps the people who already took the vaccines, many who were pressured against their will.
If skepticism is warranted, then it's wrong to be pressured to go through with a health procedure.
What? No. Risk-benefit analysis does not stop being valid just because there's a higher uncertainty.
If phase IV follow up finds problems people who are affected can be notified, funding can be allocated, etc, etc. Also known "potential negative" consequences are much better than unknown ones, because there are likely risk minimization and harm reduction strategies.
Public health is a cruel topic, because there are so many hazards, side-effects for preventative measures, so little resources, etc. It's "great" that COVID was "mild" compared to the extreme possibility of something like Ebola, but it was also much-much-much harder to contain, because it spread by air ... and it killed a lot more people in the end, because people did not take it seriously, did not manage it (inadequate testing), fall prey to the do-everything or do-nothing fallacy (eg. stay at home, meet no one ... or go to work and packed restaurants).
In this regard it's very likely okay that people were pushed, pressured, and persuaded to get the damn jab.
Higher uncertainty obviously influences a risk-benefit analysis.
If there is higher uncertainty about the validity of the purported benefits as well as the claimed safety, then it might very well be fine to decide to not participate in something, especially if you don't fall into a demographic that's particularly vulnerable.
Solid research really needs much longer timelines. Let's take some hypothetical and unlikely scenario that offspring of people who received an mRNA vaccine develop a medical condition. Mass vaccination would affect everyone so we cannot afford to be careless here. While the chances are remote, they are still above 0% and therefore 2-5 years of research seems just not enough.
The rest of the argument is fine in so far as it goes, but because we already see acute and chronic damage from COVID, the hypothetical undiscovered long term damage from any given vaccine (and there are many fundamentally different ones, they're not all mRNA) would have to be both surprisingly frequent and severe just to get up to a swings-and-roundabouts with the actual illness.
Appropriate amount of skepticism about long-term (5+ years) consequences is still warranted, though as time goes on that amount is seriously decreasing.
What's your point?