I hear ya and I was just making a goofy, silly reply. It's still getbig isn't it? 
Ok, maybe you are being serious with your questions and concerns.
I can appreciate THAT, but c'mon, no form of proof is ever enough for many who post here?
It's always another question, conspiracy theory and more doubt. It's endless dribble that goes on and on.
Dude, the FDA just gave FULL use approval for the 1st Covid vax ( Pfizer).
This is the "gold standard " of safety and effectiveness . It's the best proof any drug can get.
If that's not good enough, nothing I can say matters.
You're right, at this point any more "debate " is pointless.
Believe whatever you want. I give up 
It's not that it's not good enough, it's just that there's much more context that should be taken into consideration.
Over large sample sizes, in a short time period, the therapy is safe, that's what the math says.
But individuals are sample sizes of one, an insignificant sample in the aggregate, but super important to that individual.
So I believe each individual should weigh their own personal risk profile, and be entitled to make their decision based on that, without catching shit from anyone else telling them what they "should" be doing.
For example, even in the FDA approval doc on Pfizer, it says they will continue to monitor and track cases of myocarditis. Someone with any potential heart issue, who is otherwise in great metabolic health, may opt that it's better for them to get the virus and beat it, than to risk that particular side effect. There are countless other examples.
In addition, as you know why I was asking, there are zero long term studies, and that is also a valid concern.
So, no I don't think it's dangerous on the aggregate. Most who take it, will be less susceptible to hospitalizations or severe effects if they do get Covid in a breakthrough.
But that doesn't mean it's not potentially lethal to others, and they have every right not to take it, and not have restrictions.
