[flagged]
It was always a gamble. I took it, knowing it was a gamble, since COVID was very dangerous. We forced people to gamble. It was criminal.
Too bad it’s just a booster and I’m not eligible to get or because I haven’t gotten the probably essentially useless (for me) original vaccine. As far as I’m aware they didn’t announce the details of this until sometime in August. At this point by the time I got the booster that might provide me some protection the virus will probably have mutated again.
Define immunity, but there is absolutely evidence of long term effectiveness against hospitilization and death if you care to look for it.
"No evidence" doesn't mean we looked for it and it doesn't exist, it means we didn't look for it yet or have chosen not to look into it. In this case you seem to be citing ancient talking points from before it was possible to tell how long lasting the immunity from covid would be, AKA in early 2021 they couldn't state for fact that immunity against severe death would last longer than a year because the disease itself was too new, (although sar-cov1 was known to have long lasting immunity 10 years later, but lets pretend we didn't know that it would work the same). Now we know because the disease has been around long enough to gather those types of statistics.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...
> Virus-specific B cells increased over time. People had more memory B cells six months after symptom onset than at one month afterwards. Although the number of these cells appeared to reach a plateau after a few months, levels didn’t decline over the period studied.
Take the above snippet for example. From this you could make the statement "we don't have evidence for natural immunity lasting beyond 8 months" But that is explicitly a limit coming from the length of study.
Better get a booster then.
I'm going to demonize the person that thinks they don't need a vaccine.
> I'm going to demonize the person that thinks they don't need a vaccine.
Not sure what that's doing here.
You want the right to breathe virus particles all over me so that you can avoid basic safety measures? Sorry, my sympathy ends where my lungs begin.
- That forcing people to take a drug authorized under EUA with a relatively novel technology is a "basic safety measure"
- That people who didn't comply with this "basic" measure are not breathing virus particles all over you
I'll leave it to you to decide how good these assumptions are.
Are you new to the Internet? Arguments over putting pineapple on pizza cause vitriol.
Jokes aside, the summary admits more studies need to be necessary. From what I understand of it, it made mice stronger against flu, but may have made them weaker to other infections. This is big if true, but it requires more study.
It was aspirational not an expectation. Alas, the downvotes show me that I'm doomed to yet another disappointment :p
> This is big if true, but it requires more study.
That's basically my point. I am saying that I would have (apparently incorrectly) assured people that more study was not required - at all. I and many others probably overcorrected for the skepticism of "the other side". It doesn't change my opinion that the vaccine program was the right call.
And will any of these repercussions be significantly worse than having gotten a mild case of COVID the natural way? We do not know what COVID will do to us in 10+ years even after a mild case. Anything from nothing at all to organ failure to whatever else...
We just don't know, so we make reasonable guesses. Consider the harm we see happening weight then more against the unlimited possibilities of harm we can imagine.
People were by and large happy to have a new vaccine today and risk some unpredictable future risk than die of a disease they saw killing people.
I think some people just can't wrap their heads around balancing these kind of risks.
Part of the reason it was in studies for so long is because it kept failing. But in two weeks (seriously! That's straight from Moderna) they were able to button everything up and make it work for Covid.
"How could ten years of development possibly generate a working product?" is a take, I suppose.
You mean the animal trials in which mRNA based drugs repeatedly failed due to toxicity, for which as recently as 2017 there was no fix?
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/
No, mRNA tech wasn't being used before COVID. They were trying to bring it to market and failing. That's why so many people refer to it as experimental.
You can't and couldn't possibly know that. Nobody could. What we do know today is that the un-vaccinated aren't dying like was originally claimed they would, in fact they seem to be faring better for those under 60 or so.
Not with that attitude... Yes you can, there are plenty of ways of comparing regions or countries with high and low vaccination rates, or vaccination uptake. (Of course only while demographically adjusting, but the people who do these studies surprisingly often do think about the basic gotchas.)
The incident of death does increase substantially past 55, however people died at all ages during covid, so we know more infections = more deaths across the board.
Given that the vaccine available at the time resulted in around a 85% reduction in likelyhood of infection, we can for sure declare it saved many more lives than without, unless it directly killed more people than it helped...
Oh man what a gotcha! If only there was some sort of change in circumstances that could impact how many people will die from a new disease, like I don't know, new less damaging variants and significantly better care in facilities that are no longer buckling under the burden of thousands of cases a week.
Haven't heard that before!. Do you have a source to read more about it?