I haven't seen any reason to believe that longER-term side effects will differ significantly from the small amount of side effects we've already seen in the long period of time since the first vaccinations

obviously we can't just wait forever with the worry that in year forever+1 some random side effect completely different from what the evidence currently indicates will manifest itself

So you think that all side effects of substances are either noticeable in the first year or not at all?

Have you heard of DDT?

This really isn’t hard to understand.

In the past, some substances were thought to be safe, but turned out not to be. The “it’s safe” period of time was longer than a year.

Ergo it is reasonable to assume that we can’t know all of the side effects of current novel vaccines. It doesn’t mean there will be any, but it doesn’t mean there won’t be either.

That’s how science works.

actually, science and logic do not work in the manner of "in the past, X did Z, therefore Y will also do Z, QED"

see, in that example, you made up a rule that anything you want will cause Z, but there's no actual scientific basis for the rule

you have to actually prove Y will do Z, you can't just claim something else did Z, therefore anything can do Z

I’m not proving anything. Simply saying that we lack data and if we go by past examples, we have a reason to be cautious.

Again, you lack a basic understanding of the scientific method.

you are correct, you are not proving anything

to wit, you have not proven there is a good reason to worry about widespread significant long-term side effects of the COVID vaccines -- specifically, DDT is not a past example of a vaccine resembling any of the COVID vaccines

the lack of evidence pointing to widespread, significant, long-term side-effects so far, however, is evidence enough for us to lean in that direction

I do, however, support your right to avoid the vaccine, as well as your right to avoid any place or activity that requires those present to have it, so at least there's that

Why is this vaccine likely to have long term side effects after a year+ when others don't? How long is long enough?

There have been many negative side effects of other vaccines which were discovered after years of study.

This is basic medical knowledge. Not a conspiracy.

"many negative side effects of other vaccines" is a profoundly unscientific statement, particularly when you're trying to prove the likelihood of a completely different vaccine having side effects for other reasons

if I could just offer a piece of friendly advice, for anyone trying to convince the majority that the COVID-19 vaccines show a strong likelihood of negative side effects long-term:

try to show the actual frequency of each long-term side effect you mention, as a proportion of # of those vaccines administered, and explain the physical mechanism by which each of those side effects will manifest in recipients of the COVID-19 vaccines

could you post those frequencies, please?

if you're trying to convince the vast majority of Americans who aren't opposed to vaccine mandates, that they should change their mind, you should probably be able to show that significant side effects occur a significant % of the time in another vaccine,

then explain how that side effect modality would transfer to this vaccine (IE what they have in common which indicates the COVID vaccine will probably have the same long-term side effects)

oh, also, you never answered OP's question: how long do you think is enough?

Source? My understanding is that vaccine side effects are almost always discovered in the first few months.

The early history of the polio vaccine had many situations like this.

In 1960, the rhesus monkey kidney cells used to prepare the poliovirus vaccines were determined to be infected with the simian virus-40 (SV40),[36] which was also discovered in 1960 and is a naturally occurring virus that infects monkeys. In 1961, SV40 was found to cause tumors in rodents.[37] More recently, the virus was found in certain forms of cancer in humans, for instance brain and bone tumors, pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, and some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.[38][39] However, SV40 has not been determined to cause these cancers.[40]

SV40 was found to be present in stocks of the injected form of the IPV in use between 1955 and 1963.[36] It is not found in the OPV form.[36] Over 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine between 1955 and 1963 when a proportion of vaccine was contaminated with SV40; an estimated 10–30 million Americans may have received a dose of vaccine contaminated with SV40.[36] Later analysis suggested that vaccines produced by the former Soviet bloc countries until 1980, and used in the USSR, China, Japan, and several African countries, may have been contaminated, meaning hundreds of millions more may have been exposed to SV40.[41]

See: side effects section.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine

I note that nowhere in the quoted text does it discuss negative effects. In fact, the very next sentences say:

"In 1998, the National Cancer Institute undertook a large study, using cancer case information from the institute's SEER database. The published findings from the study revealed no increased incidence of cancer in persons who may have received vaccine containing SV40."

And beyond that, a full discussion requires comparison of negative side effects of the vaccine vs side effects of the original virus, and the rate of such effects. We know, factually, that there are often some side effects from vaccines. We also know, factually, that often the vaccine side effects are either of less severity and/or less frequency than the effects of catching the original virus. In other words, statistically, most of the time you're better off tempting fate with the vaccine than with the virus.

They found a known poison in the doses years later. I hardly think a one off study is conclusive for determining that there were no bad side effects.

I read the quote you just provided as well as the entire "side effects" section in your link. I don't see anything that supports your claim that side effects were discovered years after the vaccine had been given to people.

The closest thing was the lingering concern about SV40-contaminated doses (importantly, not the actual vaccine itself) causing increased rates of cancer, although it looks like all major attempts to determine if that was true have so far come back with a null result.