I totally understand your concerns.

First, my friend who initially got J&J decided to go and get a full round of Pfizer (1st and 2nd jabs with a brand new vaccination card, in addition to his saved J&J original vaccination card). He figured that Pfizer was a "wash," and that he'd start over. He didn't tell anyone at the vaccination place about his J&J; he only said that he needed to be vaccinated fully - from start to finish. He survived well. (He failed to get the flu shot, so then he wound up getting the flu since he's a coach at the gym. He's never gotten a flu shot before and thought he'd still be good without it - as he approaches his 60s). In essence, if you got the J&J, you have tons of options. 1. You could do what my friend did. 2. You could just get one of the mRNA boosters (the Moderna is really the best, and it's very similar to Pfizer in terms of reactions, so Moderna might be the best choice, but it's up to you). 3. You could elect to stick with getting only J&J boosters every few months until the scientists figure out what is going on. Not all vaccination places will allow you to do this though, but it doesn't seem like J&J will work well since the majority of breakthrough cases have been from the J&J jab.

Second, even with asymptomatic contraction (breakthrough cases), you can get long-Covid. You're more protected with the vaccines and boosters against long-Covid, when compared to those who've never been vaccinated. However, it is still possible to get vaccinated and boosted and still become an asymptomatic case (breakthrough case) with long-Covid (symptoms showing up weeks to months after asymptomatic contraction, and then those symptoms lasting for a long time or indefinitely).

Third, you're right about the differing of opinions from scientists who are allowing politics and economics to rule what they say to the general public. You can't really trust the leaders of today, because politics and economics relate to their job security and homeland security. Sadly, you're going to have to weed through all the political ******** and look at raw data from the sources, and hopefully multiple sources. Too bad the majority of the U.S. do not know how to read peer-reviewed research articles. I always err on the side of extreme caution, which is to say that I look for the benefits that outweigh the risks, and I do what I can to prevent getting ill holistically (e.g., wearing masks, having many air purifiers within my small apartment space, social distancing, isolating in place, shopping solely online for contactless or mail delivery, wearing goggles occasionally, always wearing gloves, always showering after any exposure to even shared air space when I open my door for 5 min. to get contactless deliveries, always washing and disinfecting incoming items, always quarantining papers that I can't wash or disinfect for at least 3 days, and doing the best I can with keeping my space cleaned and sanitized). When vaccines and boosters come available, I now elect to choose the immunocompromised route, to stay extra protected (since equality and equity should have allowed for this - the data suggest that the vaccines wane the most around month 5, so if everyone got boosted around month 4 to month 5, we'd be best protected; but then again, the flu shots only last 6 months, so you're gambling in Spring - when I used to get the flu, but a milder version due to the flu shot - since the flu vaccines wane around that time, but so does the flu itself). Many people aren't aware of how much politics affect our information on healthcare. There are so many preventable illnesses and deaths, but the healthcare industrial complex and pharmaceutical industrial complex don't offer as much information that could keep us all living healthier, longer lives.

In the end, it comes down to what you're willing to risk, given your cultural beliefs, affiliations, job/career, personal health, personal choices, and those whom you would affect by your choices (such as your significant other or children or roommates).