I think that is also fair. My understanding, from talking to people in the field, is that there is a huge underestimation of how critical it was to be able to map the genome of the disease so quickly. From there, it really isn't that hard to apply that information to existing, though relatively new, technology. I don't know that a major vaccine has been developed since DNA mapping, but to compare pre and post seems to be folly to me. Plus the testing was the widest, though admittedly not the longest, we have seen. If you want to argue that the long term effects are not known, I think that is a loser because a three year study does not allow for long term effects. If you want to argue that the medium term effects are not known as well as in a three year study, then you do have some leg to stand on.
What kills me about the political aspect is that pre election, it was Democrats warning against a Trump vaccine, if you remember, and basically for the reasons you cite. And we all laughed at them. I think the political handling of it has been atrocious, from the shaming to the idea that people should be in masks after and on and on, but I do not necessarily think it wise to assume a vaccine is bad because it gets associated with a certain party, especially when that party deserves zero, and perhaps negative, credit for it.