What? Then why are we talking about 6 month booster shots? https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-administration-plans-covid-19-vaccine-boosters-at-six-months-instead-of-eight-11629919356

That's not just talking about a second dose. That's saying you've had your two doses, and now you're going to get a third. Efficacy of the mRNA shot against the Delta Variant isn't even close to the 95% it was for the Alpha variant.

Yet far fewer than even 5% (top vaccine efficacy) who've caught the virus have had breakthrough cases. Breakthrough cases appear to be incredibly rare. So I'm curious what you're really referring to.

Lastly, the last I even bothered to look it up, there were already over 4000 covid variants. I'd be highly surprised if there's not more now. As we saw with the Delta variant, efficacy of the vaccine tanks. This is consistent with every other cold/flu type vaccine we come out with.

So the question is, how long until we accept that covid is here to stay, and people simply choose to get "this season's variant shot" or not, depending on what they prefer?

The vaccine producers had been saying since the very beginning that boosters might be needed after 6-12 months. The emergence of a new, more virulent variant (delta) shifted this more towards the lower end of this range.

I don't see why this would be a fundamental problem. First, this does not automatically imply that we will have to get re-vaxxed every 6 months for the rest of our lives. Subsequent vaccinations and/or infections (which have a mild course thanks to the vaccines!) will help build up an ever more sturdy immunity, also, we don't know if the 3rd dose will wane as quickly too. To name just one example: the polio vaccines have a 3 dose regime in which the 3rd dose is to be given 6 months after the 2nd dose. Two more boosters are recommended throughout childhood. After adolescence, the polio vaccinations only need to be refreshed once every 10 years.


We simply don't know yet how long the protection from an infection lasts, or which percentage of those who recovered from an infection actually developed immunity. Recommending them to get vaccinated too is a precautionary measure.

Also, it's a total distraction. Vaccinations for the recovered are rather unimportant for the future course of the pandemic. Dito for vaccinations of school-age children.
Getting boosters to the high-risk elderly in time and increasing the vaccination rate among adults is what's really important right now.

where was it ever said the cootie shot protected u from the cootie? i only remember reduced symptoms was the claim

Agreed. Overall, I'm thrilled with what I'm seeing from the vaccines so far. I'm not down on mandating medication over a cold to low risk groups. But I'm 100% down for the at risk groups to be thrown every resource under the sun to lower their risk, as long as it doesn't negatively impact the healthy.

And I'm very much looking forward to the mid-long term results of this vaccine. If it ends up as good as predicted, then within the next 20 years, we could see workable rabies vaccinations administered to children, the same way MMR vaccinations are. That would be amazing. Especially in more rural areas with more wildlife, not having to worry about rabies would be a godsend.

My thought on vaccines was always "anyone who wants them should consult their doctors to verify there's no issue, then get them. Anyone who doesn't want them should probably also consult their doctors, but in the end, it's their choice." The combination of natural immunity and vaccinated immunity would tell out. We've reached that "50% of the planet vaccinated" number, same as we typically do with yearly flu shots. This is amazing on every level, and should make great strides to giving the populace an overall resistance to this novel coronavirus that normally wouldn't be reached for decades, if that.

lol what a covidiot clown show
Fauci states COVID PCR test has fatal flaw
https://www.bitchute.com/video/rJbG0R4uw5FG/

No reasonable "person" naysays freedom of information or speech.
If its so unreasonable then you could easily & clearly debunk it w/o a character attack.

Voices have historically been caused by yeast deep in the sinus cavity, ear canal or in worse situations an ear infection.

They now have technology that can do this in conjuction or in replacement of yeast. Governer of minnesota confirmed back in 2012 that radio waves or radiation can create this:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4jw6bw



This post was edited by lodd222 on Aug 28 2021 01:11pm

Rabies are a rather rare disease. What I'm most thrilled about is the potential of mRNA technology for cancer treatment, which is what the tech was originally developed for.

Rabies is "rare" because it's primarily spread via wildlife, and cities are (relatively) lacking in that wildlife. Out in the countryside, it's a higher concern. Globally, some 59,000 people die per year from Rabies.

That being said, mRNA tech for cancer treatment is also something to get excited about, I agree. The 5 and 20 year studies on this global "stage 4 trial" of mRNA vaccines should be quite helpful no matter what your preferred use for the tech is.

Globally, around 10 million people die per year from cancer... it's a much bigger concern than rabies, even for the residents of very rural places.

Kind of a strange flex. I'm saying all uses of the tech should be looked at, you're talking about how cancer is worse than rabies? I dunno, be one of the 20+ million per year to get rabies and have to be treated for it, and you'd probably think differently. Further, not all cancer is created equal, and not all cancer is treatable by anything (not caught soon enough).

But comparing all cancer deaths to the deaths of a single virus is kind of droll. When you put it like that, Covid is stupid and we're wasting valuable research time on dealing with it, as far fewer than 10 million people have died from it total, let alone "per year". Again, strange flex.