| You are trying to argue semantics and claim that I am maliciously lying. >Your characterization of historic vaccines is not correct at all. Please point out exactly what I said that is not correct. >It's no different for the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines that we use for COVID, because the definition of a vaccine has nothing to do with the content of the biological prep: only with the effect it causes (increased immune response) This is semantic argument. You are saying that because the outcome of the vaccine fits the definition of the word vaccine that we have a designated Omicron vaccine. This on its face is patently ridiculous. We do not have a vaccine for omicron, and if the current vaccines provided sufficient protection, why is Pfizer currently working on a new one[0]? Granted, they have not yet reported the results of the study, but the fact that they are even doing a study to determine variant needs, proves my original point. >The second false statement is that "the previous vaccines offer quite little protection". If you had qualified this as "quite little protection against infection" or "quite little protection against spreading the virus", it would have been accurate, but you did not. I did qualify my point here: >The the current vaccines are not effective at preventing the spread of omicron. and here: >That is how they are helpful for the symptoms of omicron not the spread. It seems that you chose to change the context of our discussion to call me a liar. [0] - https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... |