[Daishiman]

False. Things are up for discussion when facts on the ground change and when new evidence arises that makes for a case that paradigms should be reconsidered.

Every piece of available evidence points to the same conclusions, over and over again: the general safety of vaccines, the risks of long COVID, the contagiousness of the Omicron variant, and so on and so forth.

Those things are clearly not up for the discussion given the absolute garbage quality of the proposed counterevidence offered by these "skeptics".

[blub]

Facts on the ground are continuously changing and have been for the duration of the pandemic: e.g. risk of myocarditis for young males. Medical bodies are reacting to these changes, in that case by recommending against Moderna for people younger than 30.

Another example is the recommendation for AstraZeneca which was first not offered to older people because of unclear efficiency data, and then not offered to younger people because of the risk of blood clots.

Yet another example is the recommendation for boosters against Omicron. Israel's backing off from recommending a fourth to the general population because among other things the faster loss of protection.