Point me to documentation on long-term side effects.

So let's try this again.

Can you confirm you refuse to take any medical treatment or intervention for any disease if it hasnt had regulatory approval for at least 2 years?

Do you treat EVERY new medicine, new vaccine or new treatment as "experimental"?
The little gang of vaccine zealots here seem unable to admit that the vaccines that have been rushed out,

Rushed out?
You mean full Phase I,I,III trials and the related subsets with HIGHER sample group sizes than is normal?

Do you think these, or any other vaccines would be "safer" if we left them sitting on a shelf for 2 years doing nothing after approval?
with minimal testing and given emergency licenses are not as well tested as other medicines.

Which bit of the identical clinical trials procedure and authorisation process is confusing you exactly?

As for emergency use - you're clearly unaware how many receive this perfectly normal process in general.
And ignoring the fact EHRA and others granted full, non-emergency approval.

You seem utterly determined to ignore the fact that the vaccines have undergone absolutely identical trial and approvals to anything else. You just dont like THIS one for some reason.
You seem to think "FAST" is bad with no justification.

Lets try this one... Which bit exactly of the Phase I,II,III trials by Pfizer do you have issues with? Specifics?
Which bit exactly of the MHRA approval procedure do you have problems with?
Specifics. Not "Wah its untested, fast, bill gates" nonsense.

Sweden certainly had a big spike at the end of the year. But that seems to have dipped massively at the start of this year.

As did pretty much everywhere else in the northern hemisphere independent of the NPIs that introduced.
Its just more evidence that all the measures impose do little to change the shape and outcome of viral spread.

I don't know as much as you do on these things. As an aircraft stress engineer who used metallic structures and moved to carbon fibre - something quite different in its operation - we would never have produced safe structures using exactly the same tests. In fact, more testing was required - and it took longer.

You wouldn't do testing for testing sake and ultimately the new product would be required to pass identical safety tests as existing parts.

We're not talking totally novel here.

Adenovirus vectors have been used in gene therapy trials for years (admittedly not working very well which is why i think Sputnik have this cracked and Oxford do not).
mRNA has been around for years in animal and other studies.

So its not true to say these are completely new, completely novel untested techniques.
They're both adaptations of existing tools. Those "extra tests" have been performed in the several years leading up to this.
All these vaccines are in effect are huge accelerations of the timeline they'd have taken anyway, due mainly to limitless budgets and massive data sets.

My worry about vaccines are efficacy based - they all target very similar, small, specific things which makes the all vulnerable to mutants far more rapidly than inactivated virus.
Yes you can recode quickly but that doesnt solve the problem of the time needed to manufacture a few hundred million new improved doses.
They may well only buy a small amount of time before we need to start over again.

Safety wise i see nothing at all to concern me.

A bunch of shit to deflect from answering the question
What are the long term side effects?

What are the long term side effects?

The main long term side effect, know so far, is less reliance on lockdown to protect vulnerable people.