any long term side effects, are realitively unknown. Even worse, not fully forseeable.
I understand the point that any regulatory checks that have been done on new vaccines may have missed possible long-term effects. No one can say that the vaccine is 100% without any risks, but nothing in life is (you could get hit by a bus on your way to your appointment). However, I don't see why these 'known unknowns' should lead someone to refuse a vaccine.
Yes, the vaccine could have long-term bad effects that we don't yet know. But, if the point is simply that we don't yet know about it's long-term effects, it's also possible that it could have long-term good effects that we don't yet know. Why assume bad effects are more likely than good?
Similarly, people focus on the possibility that the vaccine could have harmful side effects that we haven't yet seen, but so too could the virus. The death rate may not be as high as first feared, but some people do seem to be left with lasting effects and possibly organ damage. Who knows what further complications may develop in survivors. So, even if you prefer caution, why think the vaccine is more likely to have unknown negative side effects than the virus?
To be clear, I don't claim to have studied the science. I doubt I'd understand it if I tried. But my point here is about the possibility of unknown risks, rather than known ones. I don't see why possible unknown effects should influence behaviour either way.