[cbxyp]

>since even lacking long term empirical evidence we know how they work and have a deep mechanical understanding of mRNA vaccines, and they are not going to cause issues, period.

Erm, our understanding of the mechanics of COVID vaccines has changed dramatically over the period since their introduction. Initially it was thought that they provided longterm immunity, now boosters. The manufacturer said that spike proteins would not escape the muscle. Pfizers own post marketing study shows that they spread thru out the body. In short, we do not have a deep understanding of the long term impacts, as evidenced by the unexpected drop in efficacy. It may be that so-called "leaky" vaccines such as the COVID vaccines, which do not produce neutralizing antibodies result in strains with worse potential lethality evolving, as is the what happened with Marek's disease in chickens. Initially, vaccine manufacturers and the CDC alike claimed that vaccines were producing neutralizing antibodies. Now 4 out of every 5 hospitalized cases of Covid in Canada have received their 1st, 2nd and third shots.

In short, I hope you were kidding saying that.

[kennywinker]

> initially it was thought that they provided longterm immunity

I don't remember that ever being said. Initially it was HOPED that it might provide longterm immunity - but the vaccines were launched into a world where we still didn't have a conclusive answer to the question "can you get covid twice". If anybody was saying that, they were speaking beyond their knowledge.

As for the unexpected drop in efficacy, that is at least in part due to the fact that the covid-19 we're exposed to today is not the same covid-19 that the vaccine was targeted against.

For the record, I agree with your overall point - mRNA vaccines were not and are not a well understood system with no potential for unknown effects. But neither is covid and given the two unknowns, the vaccine seems the safer choice.

[michaelmrose]

It should be noted that with Marek's disease we have no desire to create an actually healthful living environment which would reduce the prevalence of the disease in the population and instead have been raising billions of chickens PER YEAR in hideous filth with the understanding that we would be killing them before their environment did for 50 years to get where we are with Marek's and despite all this vaccinated chickens are still better off now than unvaccinated chickens were before the vaccine was invented.

Marek's doesn't make a good argument for vaccine skepticism because it represents a worst case arms race in which modern medicine was still by far the better choice. Also we aren't chickens and most diseases on average tend to become less damaging in order to spread better. Neither this average case nor the extreme case of Marek's are fate but the logical thing is to vaccinate and just keep swimming as it will obviously decrease mortality in the short and long term.

Moving on to the percentage of individuals in the hospitals in Canada being vaccinated.

You have entirely misunderstood the numbers if indeed your numbers are actually even accurate. Vaccination rate is very high in Canada around 90% with vulnerable groups being more like 95-98%.

Lets take this to the logical extreme. Imagine that out of one million people you are the only one unvaccinated and are hospitalized along with 100 vaccinated folks. Even in a world where vaccination decreased hospitalization by 99% you could accurately say that most of the people in the hospital were vaccinated as if that proved somehow that vaccines didn't work.

Indeed one expects with a successful vaccination campaign that eventually most of the people in the hospital are going to be vaccinated no matter how effective it is at keeping them out of it because almost all the vulnerable people are. In the last vaccine skeptic in the world universe you could instead look at which portion of each population is sick. In the vaccinated it would be 0.01% vs 100% of the unvaccinated giving the lie to the prior analysis.

Indeed the only reason to lean on that number is deliberate deception or utter failure to apprehend what the numbers mean.

[spacefracas]

Please show where an rna vaccine claimed anything other than a reduction in severe disease and with duration tbd.

[Vecr]

The primary endpoint of the Pfizer trial was any symptomatic disease. That means they would monitor participants for symptoms, and if they had any they would be PCR tested to make sure it was not something else. They claimed the lower end of the 95 confidence interval relative risk reduction was ~90%. You can look at the prescribing guide on the FDA's website for more details. J&J did moderate to severe disease as the primary endpoint though.

[aksss]

The vaccine doesn’t make claims - let’s not anthropomorphize it. The drug companies, public policy authorities, and politicians make claims.

Here’s a link from Pfizer themselves talking about the vaccine *preventing* COVID infection, not just severe symptoms. This is basic Google stuff. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...

Shall we move on to the talking heads from public health institutions and the politicians? I mean, examples abound and this would be a lay-up. Google is your friend here.

But how can you be unaware of these claims after two years of drama over them in the global public square? Vaccine mandate propositions were largely predicated on the inflated expectations of efficacy - people lost their livelihoods over this. We’re not talking about flippant one-off statements here, but the confidence and endorsement that moves government and corporate policy.