The fact that mRNA based interventions have never before been deployed and as an individual it’s sensible to be cautious about using them until there is long term safety data?
Only if you believe that the risks of mRNA vaccination is higher than the (extra) risk of covid. In my estimation taking the vaccine is the prudent and cautious choice, and the scientific consensus has to be wrong by a large margin for your position to turn out to be more prudent.
If the scientific consensus is contradicting basic system component risk analysis, then yes we unfortunately have to ignore it. I too am deeply disturbed by this.
No, but we do have an enormous amount of data on viruses in general. “The unknown” is limited to the unique attributes of a specific virus, and any common attributes across viruses in general or related-and-well-studied are low risk for producing unexpected long term effects. For mRNA interventions on the other hand, “the unknown” covers the entire mechanism.
> For mRNA interventions on the other hand, “the unknown” covers the entire mechanism.
Why do you think that? mRNA interventions have been researched and tested for a while, this was just the first big real-world application. But that's very different from saying that mRNA interventions haven't been well-studied. You'll have to provide actual research comparing long-term dangers of viruses with existing long-term mRNA tests to make this claim and convince anyone.
Personally, having been led on wild goose chases by the medical system before in life led me to also be wary of any magic solution with no long term testing.
Pretty much everything has side effects - even the most safe drug or supplement has tradeoffs. For example, taking PPIs which are very safe will cause malabsorption of B12 over time leading to various health issues.