I think the main difference between now and in years past is this COVID vaccine does not prevent you from becoming infected and in years past the vaccines we took - polio and others did.
The government has been requiring vaccinations for decades. Same thing with quarantines and other public health measures designed to limit out breaks of deadly diseases. Virtually everyone on this board was required to be vaccinated for about a dozen diseases prior to starting kindergarten. I guess we should just go back to letting mumps, measles, polio, diphtheria, etc. run wild. Let's do away with health and safety inspections at restaurants and grocery stores so I can enjoy my e coli the way God intended. I'm also going to request that our county government eliminate Mosquito Control so I can get yellow fever or West Nile Virus and watch 10% of the population of the city I live in die like they did in 1876. I'll also petition for a name change to our local Quarantine Island - because it offends me that in the 1800s and early 1900s, crews from all foreign ships were forced, FORCED I tell you, to be quarantined to keep disease low in our port city. Disease, plague and pestilence for all!!!!
It's only different in how long the vaccines have been out before becoming mandatory versus the severity of the disease. While MRNA tech isn't new, to my knowledge there haven't been any vaccines with it so people are understandably concerned about whether there might be long term, unknown effects.
For the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, I don't think it is different, but I'm not positive. The only new vaccine I can remember recently was the one for HPV. And there was a stink about making that mandatory, which some states did I think pretty quickly (I know it hurt Rick Perry in his campaign; his argument was that making it mandatory ensured it was covered by insurance, and then there was an opt out procedure). I'm not sure how long it has typically taken to get from the development of a vaccine to it being made mandatory, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is usually done within a couple of years, so with not much better long term data than we have now. And we basically have a new flu vaccine every year, and I'm not sure the Johnson and Johnson is really different. Probably a little more likely to have adverse effects from the stress of your immune response, so probably more dangerous, but once you get through that initial response (which we do have data on, if imperfect), I don't know why there would be any particular concern about long term, unknown effects that wouldn't be there for say the flu vaccine. Not saying their isn't, but it's basically the same technology as far as I understand it.
Dude, I hope you recover quickly and keep the exposure to only you.
Do you gentlemen not understand the 95% efficacy rate and how that works. Do you also not understand that coverage could and now does wane over time? Neither have ever been contradicted by someone that supports the vaccine.
Here is the brass tax people. Scientist deal in facts of the moment they are gathered. They do not have to be 100% completely 17n correct at all times. Regardless, the scientist dealing with COVID vaccines and involved in protecting the welfare of our citizens is light years more functional and correct than the naysayers. People try to hold them to some 100% correct standard, that is laughable. But they said mask are not useful and then they said they were...... Cry me a river.
So scientist do not have to be correct 100% of the time, and just because they were temporarily incorrect on one thing doesn't mean they are completely full of shit on other items.
We know infinitely more now than we did when this thing started.
Different viruses different long term vaccine responses. This is what we have. And with 5,040,000,000 doses given, there shouldn't be any hold outs due to questions at this point.
There are other vaccines in the work that are taken through nose sprays that will keep you from contracting the virus. Until they are available, this is best we have and its the best we are going to have.
Either way, it is clear the vaccine keeps you out of the hospital. Why chance the dang high cost of going into an American Hospital.
At UMMC, out of 131 inpatients with Covid, 68% are unvaccinated. What was that number months ago? Closer to 90%? Hmmm...
There are also anti-body treatments for unvaccinated that are showing great results and keep people out of the hospital. From the medical people I know, whether people are vaccinated or not, people are not seeking treatment because they think the vaccine will save them or they don't know about the treatments mentioned above.
Where's the scientific data on vaccine immunity vs natural immunity and the length of time you are protected? It seems to be changing with the minute and now discussions of a 6 month booster are needed.
A) Taking the vaccine does not keep you from getting C19. It does however help with the severity.
B) We also have some great therapeutics in ivermectin and hydroxychloroquin. More studies are coming out showing this. Big Tech makes them harder to find- but they are there. A friend of mine had his wife get it. So did he after she tested positive. He never got tested. Got some ivermectin from the tractor supply place and was fine.
C) We are going to be in a constant state of panic push from the media and govt leaders until after the midterms.
D) Cases is not the concern. It's hospitalizations and deaths. A large number of asymptomatic cases are never even discovered.
They were all vaccines!
Vaccination and immunization are related, although one describes an action while the other describes a process.
CDC Definition:
1) Vaccination is the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
2) Immunization is a process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination.