[bawolff]

Comparing a not yet existant vaccine to a vaccine for a virus that's totally different is silly.

Especially comparing it to the flu, as that's a virus that mutates much more often than most viri.

In any case no vaccine is 100% effective. The goal is typically to be effective enough that the virus dies out faster than it spreads. Which solves the problem.

There are a lot of covid vaccine trials going on. The different candidates have different properties. It has yet to be seen which candidates are succesful.

[SpicyLemonZest]

While you're correct to point that out, I'm not aware of any health experts who expect that the current crop of vaccine candidates are sufficient to stop the disease from spreading. The hope is that it will spread slower and/or be less severe.

[bawolff]

I'm definitely no expert on this, but it seems a little early to say. There's 321 candidates in development (albeit some very early stage) and none have fully passed trials yet. I think the effiacy of various candidates isn't clear yet (i may be totally wrong)

[semerda]

So first you denounce my statement then you agree with it (around vaccines)?

I’m comparing RNA based viruses not diseases. If the keyword “flu” offends you because you think I’m comparing it to the flu then replace it with any RNA based virus and it’s mutation rate. You’ll realize fast that the thing called cure is only 100% effective when the mutation rates are close to 0.

[bawolff]

Measles is an RNA virus. Vaccine essentially lasts forever. Ditto on hep A.

Why do you think that the flu being an RNA virus is the reason that you need a new vaccine every year? I'm pretty sure that is not the reason.