There actually have been mRNA vaccine trials for more than a decade[0]. The thing about mRNA vaccines is that they have far fewer moving parts, so to speak, than conventional vaccines. So the mRNA vaccine for two different diseases will differ far less than two conventional vaccines for different diseases.

As I understand it, a reasonable comparison is between two mRNA vaccines and two flu vaccines from different years. So if you trust the 10 years of studies that don't show any long term negative effects, and you trust that the particular protein won't have long term ill effects (and, well, if it does, you'd also get them from the virus and probably worse), then the set of assumptions you need to make are relatively small, and essentially the same as the ones you'd make in getting any given flu vaccine.

So please also take the time to educate yourself before calling others "blind"!

[0]: https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/evolution-mrna-v...

Thank you for making a good point. I'm saying we should use the limited data we have to make the best predictions we can until all of the data comes in. Of course, predictions don't always end up being right, weather forecasts being the obvious example, but there is still value in making them and trusting them (with a grain of salt).

>limited data

Yes! And do not forget, the limited data includes the botched 1970s flu vaccine as well. Don't forget the infamous Tuskgee experiment. These are all valid data points that people can use to say "well i'm not going to be a guinea pig until the long term data comes out". There is also data that most people don't find out they are allergic until the first shot. That's anxiety inducing!

When you start becoming empathetic to the other side, you realize that there are gaps where simply hand waving doesn't make the problem go away. And this is a problem everyone with an opinion, on this topic, seems to forget