[robhunter]

I'm not sure the public - at least in North America - has much of an appetite for any more Covid vaccines. In the US:

- Only about 2% of kids under 5 have had a 1st dose since they were introduced nearly a month ago

- Only 30% of the 5-11 year old population has had 2 doses

- < 50% of people w/2 doses went on to get a booster

So much damage has been done to public trust - "You will not get Covid if you get the vaccine; the vaccine eliminates the spread of the disease; the vaccine is more effective than natural immunity; healthy 18 year old males need a booster to go to school" - that I think it will be a real uphill climb to get more buy-in, even if the actual underlying product is more effective.

[DennisP]

As an American with very little appetite for catching Covid, I'll be first in line for a universal covid vaccine.

[js2]

Ditto. I’ve had both boosters I’m eligible for. I’ve avoided catching this damn virus until now and I have no intention of doing so. Vaccines are a modern miracle and people scoff at them. It’s shameful.

[rayiner]

I had it, before a vaccine was available, and it was a nothing burger, like it was for most 30-somethings. If you already have natural immunity, or 1-2 doses of the vaccine, there’s no point worry about it.

[Auracle]

I had the original strain and then delta 9 months later. I was 33-ish, decent BMI and I get more exercise than 99% of people.

Both times I had two full weeks of extremely high fevers and I was the most fatigued I’ve ever been in my life, to the point where it was an incredible challenge to feed myself or go to the bathroom. The first time my around my lungs hurt enough where I could barely take a full breath and I developed a cough so bad I couldn’t really talk for at least a few weeks after the infection waned.

Granted, I have a really crappy immune system and I always get colds when exposed to someone sick and they hit me hard for at least a week with another week or two of symptoms. That said, your experience isn’t everyone’s.

[landemva]

Am curious what blood test showed for antibodies after your first infection.

I had it 1.5 years ago. I just got another blood test and the IgG antibodies are still strong.

[sn9]

You might have had a more recent non-symptomatic infection.

All kinds of possible explanations.

[xedrac]

I had it about 2 weeks before I was eligible to get a vaccine, in my 30s. As an active Crossfitter, I am (was?) much healthier than the majority of my peers. Yet it nearly killed me with double pneumonia, and I couldn't taste or smell for 7 months. Even so, I hate masks and haven't gotten any booster shots. I'm just so weary from everything covid related. I'll get an annual shot along with the flu shot, but otherwise I'm done with covid forever.

[camgunz]

Unless you give it to someone else and they die.

[nogbit]

Two JJ vaccines. Two years I get by without getting it and living with someone who had it.

Got it this week, in my 40’s, it sucks and I haven’t been sick for 3 years.

[randomhodler84]

No, stop staying this foolishness. In dense cities like NY, I would say at least 20% of the city is infected right now. Workers. People on the street. The subway is disgusting, there is at least one infected person per carriage coughing over everyone and refusing to wear a mask. You walk around and hear that infected lung with light mucus cough. It’s everywhere. Unless we get proper proper sterilizing vaccines, the world is going to be in a cycle of getting sick from it every few months. This is serious and infectious like nothing on earth. I am tired of the selfishness of people having an attitude that it’s not a big deal.

At this point the vax we had is for something that doesn’t exist anymore. There is no long lasting natural resistance. We need new tech and widespread adoption. If people are going to go out symptomatic and infected and spread an r=17.5 virus, and there really is nothing we can do to stop them, we need much better tech to save us.

[internet_user]

Immunity is likely long term. There was evidence of a bone marrow compartment formation after primary infection in the early days of the pandemic, maybe even as early as 2020. It continues to be supported.

Latest: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

"This work provides further evidence of sustained immune response in children up to 1 year after primary SARS-CoV-2 infection."

More details on the mechanism: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34030176 "Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans."

Follow the science. There is no need to panic.

[randomhodler84]

Yes, however BA.5 is another beast. Post infection immunity lasts in the order of weeks it would appear.

[akkawwakka]

Immunity to infection ≠ immunity to serious disease. The epitopes that drive long-lived memory are fairly well conserved.

[rayiner]

Well maybe try moving out of such a densely packed disease trap? Out here in the exurbs I don’t know a single person for whom covid has been any more inconvenient than a cold (since vaccines became widely available).

I’m no anti-vaxxer. I had it, got vaxxed anyway just in case, wore my masks, etc. Like most people, I’m done now. If you want to go live in a bubble be my guest.

[sn9]

That implies we should simply empty the world's cities which I hope you recognize is not a serious or pragmatic alternative to simply vaccinating more.

We could just vaccinate our way until Covid transmission rates fall enough that we don't have to worry about it. Congrats on living in the middle of nowhere, but that's a bubble of a different sort.

[randomhodler84]

I don’t not have that luxury to move. It’s not about me in a bubble.

It’s about humanity and a painful existence of pestilence. You might be “done” with it. Humanity is not. Virus is not.

A bubble is ignoring one of the greatest threats to our civilization today.

[TeeMassive]

> In dense cities like NY, I would say at least 20% of the city is infected right now. Workers. People on the street. The subway is disgusting, there is at least one infected person per carriage coughing over everyone and refusing to wear a mask. You walk around and hear that infected lung with light mucus cough. It’s everywhere.

If you are to insult people's intelligence then don't use your own germophobic anecdotal perception of the world as a credible epidemiological source.

> Unless we get proper proper sterilizing vaccines, the world is going to be in a cycle of getting sick from it every few months.

I get it that you're not familiar with most respiratory viruses.

> I am tired of the selfishness of people having an attitude that it’s not a big deal.

Imposing a medical procedure for your own safety is also a form of selfishness that lead to abuse in the recent past (see Jacobson v. Massachusetts and how it lead to Buck v. Bell)

> There is no long lasting natural resistance. We need new tech and widespread adoption.

Coronaviruses are know to change very quickly and this is why they escape immunity. Tech is not magic and won't change that fact of life. A universal coronavirus vaccine is a pipe dream.

[cameldrv]

Bob Wachter, who is the chair of medicine at UCSF periodically publishes the UCSF asymptomatic test positive rate. Everyone who is admitted to UCSF takes a Covid test. This rate is the fraction of people who are admitted without Covid symptoms, that test positive. IMO this is a very good number because it's a somewhat randomized population that is being tested in a controlled way, without too much bias.

The latest number he posted, from July 3, was 6.5% [1]. This means roughly 1 in 15 people you come across in San Francisco is positive for Covid. If you're on a crowded bus or train car, there will be multiple Covid positive people on it, and likely one that is contagious. If you regularly take transit and aren't wearing a really excellent mask, it's pretty likely you'll catch it over the course of a month or two.

Back to anecdotes, about 70% of the people I know that fit this description and ride transit in a big city without a mask have gotten symptomatic Covid in the past 3 months. All of them boosted btw.

[1] https://twitter.com/Bob_Wachter/status/1543780608744165376

[randomhodler84]

And that’s asymptomatic! I caught 3 trains today, and in all of them someone was visibility sick and didn’t care. Someone was having a coughing fit on the platform, no mask of course. I went shopping, and several of the staff and shoppers were also visibility sick. One shopper started coughing in front of everyone and they completely ignored it and carried on. At a fast food restaurant (outdoors) there were at least 2 tables with people visibly sick eating their food.

Really, going out in public is quite a risk these days. The sheer number of infected all around you is quite troubling.

[randomhodler84]

I’d say virusaphobic. I have been sicker from others in the last year than in 2020 and earlier. I’ve lost a lot of life this past year.

So what are we going do? Big city life is going to be unbelievably poor unless we solve this problem.

[xyzzy123]

I've not been able to find medical evidence that the vaccine has any benefits at all for under 5s.

It's been theorised to reduce severe illness and death (and it's very plausible it might!) but afaict that's never actually been measured.

[jameshart]

Vaccines are not only supposed to benefit the recipient.

Vaccination is a public health program.

If vaccinating under fives reduces the risk to preschool carers and enables us to maintain higher preschool capacity then that's a public benefit that has nothing. to do with whether it affects the individual outcomes of five year olds who contract covid.

[xyzzy123]

Right but it doesn't prevent infection or transmission for more than a couple of months.

> If vaccinating under fives reduces the risk to preschool carers and enables us to maintain higher preschool capacity

I agree, but this is also not known.

Any broader public health benefits are theoretical at this point. They don't seem to have been measured or even modelled.

[jameshart]

Vaccination (and masking and distancing) are the only things we really can try to reduce transmission.

[toomim]

You're ignoring ventilation, air filtration, sanitization, quarantining, and a bunch of other things.

[josephcsible]

This gives me Omelas vibes. Is it really a good idea to increase risk of harm (via side effects) in our youngest for "the greater good"?

[jameshart]

We’re talking about a vaccine. The risks involved are generally very small, and the benefits of a successful vaccination program are massive.

On the other hand we occasionally lose an entire classroom of kids to a mass shooting, but a significant part of society tells us that we can’t do anything to restrict gun ownership to reduce that risk because apparently the ‘greater good’ of mass unrestricted gun ownership is more important.

[ifyoubuildit]

> We’re talking about a vaccine.

We're talking about interfacing with an incredibly varied and complicated system in the human body. Just because we have implementations that have worked spledidly in the past, doesnt mean that every new instance of the class "vaccine" should immediately get to ride on the coattails of the others.

Maybe these vaccines are a miracle as a lot of people believe. But this mindset of "it carries the same name as these other products, so it must be fine" is an incredibly vulnerable one to have for future drug products.

[enobrev]

Your % for kids under 5 isn't indicative of much. We signed up for a vaccine for my almost-3yo the day they were released and we're scheduled for next week. I know lots of parents who are also scheduled and most are after us.

Just because they were made available a month ago doesn't mean anyone actually had access a month ago.

[robhunter]

With significantly more constrained supply, demand for 1st doses was materially higher for every other age group

For instance, 5-11 year olds were up to 15% at about the same period of time after the vaccines were made available to that age group - https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/an-upda...

15% vs. 2% is a pretty substantial drop in just ~6 months, no?

[enobrev]

We - as in parents - literally can't get them. They are intentionally releasing the vaccine for under 5s significantly slower. The comparison doesn't make sense. This has nothing to do with demand.

[camdenreslink]

This has been my experience as well. We go to a large pediatrician practice and they hadn’t even had a meeting yet to start planning to distribute to under 5 kids when it got approved.

They finally just called us to see if we wanted it, but we ended up going to Rite Aid.

[TMWNN]

>- Only about 2% of kids under 5 have had a 1st dose since they were introduced nearly a month ago

>- Only 30% of the 5-11 year old population has had 2 doses

And yet I bet we all here (in the US; I hear that other countries haven't bothered, seeing no need based on the raw statistics) have seen/heard news stories in which parents are quoted as being pleased that their little ones can finally be vaccinated. Were parents who saw no need quoted? Yeah, I didn't hear any either.

Yet another example of The Narrative(TM) being pushed, regardless of the facts on the ground.

[namecheapTA]

I heard a PSA on the radio that said you should get your 5-13 or whatever age children vaccinated because "many children will suffer major covid complications or even death".

'Many'. No percentage. Just many.

[metadat]

Your extrapolations from the cited metrics make no sense. People are less interested in the currently available vaccines because they don't protect against the current dominant strain (BA.5).

[robhunter]

Boosters have been available for nearly a year; vaccines for 5-11's for ~6 months.

I think the booster rate is a reasonable sign that trust in "the science" has been lost - why do you think such a large % of people who initially "followed the science" (and got 2 doses) chose not to "follow the science" and get a booster? (Again, keeping in mind boosters have been widely available since late 2021)

[ekianjo]

> People are less interested in the currently available vaccines because they don't protect against the current dominant strain (BA.5).

That's not what the CDC is saying at all.

[wizofaus]

I've had three jabs within the last 12 months and while eligible for a 4th, tend to feel it's worth waiting for a shot that's better tailored for protection against current variants, and I'm sure there are others. But it's not people like me that explain how many people haven't even bothered with a 2nd or 3rd jab at all (which have been available here for 9+ months).

[jmyeet]

> So much damage has been done to public trust

Anti-vaxxers aren't new. What we have here is an unhealthy mix of exceptionalism, anti-intellectualism and contrarianism. There is a psychological comfort in believing you' can see through the [Big Lie/Conspiracy].

Prior to Covid it was autism and vaccine. When was the last time you heard about that? Before Covid. Why? Because we've moved on to another vaccine to be skeptical about. The same thing will happen again.

It goes on well before autism too. Polio and smallpox vaccines had their own oppoosition but now we somehow remember those as the "safe" vacines rather than the baselessly "unsafe" mRNA vaccines.

As far as undermining public trust goes, this isn't new either. It has been the platform of the Republican Party for since at least the Reagan era to completely undermine public institutions through chronic underfunding and then use that "failure" as a justification for further funding cuts.

The sad reality is that America in particular has a problem with self-identifying free-thinkers who are the most easily manipulated of all except it's not by the government: it's by church leaders, politicians, grifters (eg Andrew Wakefield in the autism vaccine era, Bob Malone in the Covid era) and self-declared "leaders" because so many lack the capability or interest for critical thinking and simply want to be told what they feel is right.

Look no furhter than your own comment here: no one said the vaccine means you won't get Covid but that's a commonly pushed straw man argument. You'd know that if you remotely looked into it but I very much suspect you don't care. You've decided that's "reality" so that's that.

[to1y]

Well the polio vaccine left people blind iirc. Unfortunately the anti-vax group isnt completely crazy this time. If you haven't seen or heard of adverse reactions click your heels and go kiss your mother: you're one of the lucky ones. I had to get the vac for int travel and to this day, 6 months later, I still have not recovered my strength. I had covid before that and since then, the first time I barely noticed it, this time it was like a very mild version of what happened with the vaccine. If I could go back I would go nowhere near it. Despite the arrogance most medical professionals display, it seems medicine(atleast this sphere) is the furthest away from true honest science out of all the disciplines.

[ephimetheus]

I know literally not a single person who has had a severe reaction to any of the vaccines.

I find it fascinating that on HN anecdata that conforms with the vaccine being dangerous is totally accepted, but anecdata about people getting very sick from COVID are either considered lies or statistical outliers.

[wizofaus]

I do know at least a couple that have had severe reactions, especially skin conditions and issues with their eye muscles of all things. Of course there are risks taking vaccines, but they're minor compared to the risks of what covid can do to you. The vaccine reactions are very rarely persistent beyond 6 months or so. I know at least a few people who are still struggling with what covid did to their bodies over 12 months ago with little indication it will improve with time.

[to1y]

React19.org - Here's 12000 of them in one spot for you.

My favorite is the 12 year old girl who's in a wheelchair now, what's yours?

[sterlind]

I think you're thinking of the Cutter incident in the '50s, where they didn't properly weaken the live polio vaccine and it lead to cases of paralysis. I saw temporary blindness listed as a rare side effect of the DTP combined vaccine, but little else.

fwiw I did not notice any long-term side effects from my three Pfizer shots, nor did anyone I personally know.

[robhunter]

As I mentioned in another comment, the President of the United States literally said that if you take the vaccine, you won't get Covid, verbatim.

To your broader point - I think skepticism about the efficacy of the Covid vaccine is a very different (and rapidly evolving) thing than traditional anti-vaxx rhetoric.

If you don't think public trust has declined - why did fewer than 50% of people who got 2 doses go on to get a booster? What changed for them?

[etchalon]

Very few people get the Flu vaccine every year.

People are lazy.

[mc32]

People don't get them due to efficacy. People know the makers plan in advance and try to predict the strain that will hit and their prognostication is understandably sub-par.

[wizofaus]

The pros still vastly outweigh the cons. I hadn't been getting one largely out of laziness and slight needle phobia in previous years. I changed only once it became a requirement for visiting aged care homes, and even though they don't enforce it, have continued getting my annual jabs. Flu vaccines do actually generally provide quite good protection against infection of the most common strains.

[jameshart]

The previous president suggested some sort of experimental bleach-based antiviral treatment regime was under development. And you want to ding this one for trying to persuade people to take a vaccine?

[namecheapTA]

Trump didn't suggest it. He mentioned that it was being looked at as one of the possible options.

And I think OP is implying that a totally incorrect statement erodes trust, even if you were just trying to persuade people to take the vaccine.

[Ekaros]

Maybe these types of lies spread by the fascist totalitarian anti-freedom vaccine promoting crowd is part of the problem.

[jameshart]

‘promoting general public health through sensible preventive medical programs’ is not generally listed among the top evils committed by totalitarian regimes.

[SamoyedFurFluff]

Caveat, I plan to get a universal vaccine as soon as I’m able to.

However, I will state I don’t believe the entirety of people not getting vaccines can be on fearmongering and ignorance. It is true that there has been contradictory public statements in a way that eroded trust in future statements, for example I remember there was plenty of positioning early on that vaccines provide immunity to disease in general and not just to severe disease. Of course this was prior to evidence of waning antibodies and virus escaping immunity, but now that those are well documented it makes having trusted the vaccines to provide complete immunity to seem foolish.

[jtc331]

You literally ignored all of the parent’s points about wildly changing promises and narratives and inconsistencies to make this for into your story about this just being about an “ unhealthy mix of exceptionalism, anti-intellectualism and contrarianism”.

[KennyBlanken]

The parent point's claims were a gish-gallop, and the proper response is to call it out or ignore it.

The FDA and CDC never claimed that if you get vaccinated, you won't get covid. Once Biden mis-spoke during an off-the-cuff comment with a reporter.

[nonethewiser]

It's not fair to equate skepticism of the covid vaccine to being anti vax.

[jmyeet]

"Vaccine skeptic" is just the more indirect way of saying "anti-vaxxer". There's no practical difference.

[josephcsible]

You focused on the wrong part of the sentence. The key difference is whether someone is against vaccines in general, or against the COVID vaccines in particular.

[throwaway234223]

Correct. It's a straw man.

[throwaway234223]

By definition, they would need to oppose vaccinations or mandates [1].

[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

[etchalon]

How is it not fair? It's the same logic.

[rayiner]

It’s not the same logic. You’re comparing traditional vaccines deployed for decades before being mandatory to literally the first mRNA vaccine in wide use that was developed just a year ago during a pandemic.

[MrMan]

this is complete bullshit - getting vaccinated isnt a matter of public trust, stop with this ridiculous propaganda to politicize medicine.

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

The parent was speaking about the public's trust in institutions. I share the belief that the medical establishment's refusal to speak with nuance about covid and the vaccines did more harm than good.

By laying everything out plainly, I believe more people would have gotten vaccinated.

They're used to trying to distill unbelievably complex issues down to an actionable, one-sentence recommendation for everyone. For most things that's fine, but during a global pandemic people want to know a bit more.

[sovnade]

No official body has ever said "you will not get covid if you get the vaccine". Even the earliest trial results said "you will not be hospitalized or die if you get the vaccine", not that you won't get covid.

And at the time, that was true because we were dealing with the original strain.

Nothing else you said is untrue either. The vaccine drastically reduced the spread of the virus. I'm not sure what you're getting at besides spreading more disinformation.

edit: i've replied several times below but everyone needs to keep in mind WHEN things were said. When the CDC said you wouldn't catch the virus in early 2021 - they were basically fully accurate because we were dealing with the original strain. Delta did not exist yet. The original vaccines were INCREDIBLY effective against the original strain - beyond anyone's wildest expectations. 100% effectiveness against death and severe hospitalization. 95% effectiveness against symptoms entirely. These levels of protection were amazing. Yes, things changed when Delta arrived, and even moreso with omicron and future subvariants, but you can't go back with hindsight and discredit what was said _at the time_.

[robhunter]

The president of the United States literally said "You're not going to get Covid if you've had these vaccinations" - https://youtu.be/VArXfQU--LA?t=21

It's likely the vaccines reduced the spread of the virus temporarily, but it certainly wasn't very long-lasting. The efficacy waned quickly, even against the original strains/Alpha/Delta - take a look at case rates in Israel (first heavily vaccinated country) through mid-late 2021 (before Omicron).

[sovnade]

Remember Delta wasn't even around until late summer. Biden's speech was barely an exaggeration at the time when we were dealing with the original strain. Was it 100% effective at preventing all infection entirely? No. It was 100% effective in preventing severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death, and was 95% effective in preventing symptoms entirely. 95% reduction in infection and 100% reduction in death is close enough to round up for a non-technical speech.

[josephcsible]

> It was 100% effective in preventing severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death

Do you have a source for this? It sounds completely implausible.

[Ekaros]

So it was outright lie. Pure evil to spread that sort of pseudo-science.

[etchalon]

And as this is the first time any politician has engaged in hyperbole, or been made incorrect by changing information, the American public was rightfully shocked.

[apostacy]

Except that created a narrative that the pandemic was above politics, and was only about public health and "the science". But that is clearly not the case.

[Terretta]

As was known before Americans took them: 90 - 180 days useful efficacy tops. That’s why the first vax card already had a half dozen lines to record doses.

[jmaygarden]

I definitely did NOT know that when the vaccinations were first rolled out. Do you have a source?

[ekianjo]

Wrong on all accounts. The early communication about the vaccine was all about preventing infections. You are trying to rewrite History.

Back in 2020, press release from Pfizer:

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...

> "Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose;170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics; observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%"

[etchalon]

What you're showing is that the early data showed a high degree of efficacy against an earlier variant. And 95% isn't 100%.

[ekianjo]

Even with the earlier variants the actual clinical data on the market never achieved 95%. Pure hyperbole and Pfizer has still not shared the actual raw data of the trials.

[sovnade]

It was extremely effective against preventing infection (and transmission). The press release you posted said as much. But everything I heard at the time was that it was 100% effective at preventing severe infections (including hospitalizations and death), and that you were much, much less likely to have symptoms at all should you contract it.

[hanklazard]

The parent is not “spreading more disinformation”, as I see it. The comment just gives the opinion that the public is less than optimistic about vaccines after a challenging and rapidly changing public health campaign. I can tell you as a primary care doctor in a highly blue area of the country, I pretty much agree with the assessment—we are seeing very little interest these days, as much as we are trying to offer.

[apvieira]

What about the CDC saying that "vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick"?

https://youtu.be/uKf8dVxOy0s

[sovnade]

And this was mostly true from the original strain back in early 2021. The vaccine reduced the ability to contract and spread the virus dramatically. The chances of contracting and spreading the original strain, if you were fully vaccinated, was close enough to zero to say it basically wasn't happening.

Delta obviously changed that, and omicron has changed it much more.

[peteradio]

You would think the Centers for Disease Control might predict this coronavirus like all other coronaviruses would rapidly mutate. This is the worst kind of data driven exercise where field knowledgeable people apparently pretend that the history of their field does not exist. Experts are clearly being siloed and gagged. I'd even bet Fauci is being told what to say, against his own judgement, but his position gags him. Any true scientist would be twisted into knots protecting their statements with caveats, but what does the public hear? Confidence!

[Ekaros]

>And this was mostly true

Always coming back with the weasel words after lies. This is why the one side can not be trusted at all. They always lie and distort the truth.

[yucky]

The CDC literally rewrote the definition of "vaccine" on their website to fit the new reality.[1]

Sorry, the trust is long gone and never coming back.

[1] https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/emails-confirm-why-cdc-ch...

[sovnade]

And now it's more accurate - there's plenty of vaccines out there previously that weren't 100% effective, so there's no reason to have the absolute language out there. The measles vaccine is only 97% effective after 2 doses - so that wouldn't have met the old definition either.

edit: sorry i'm rereading your post and I'm not even sure what your issue is with the current definition

[yucky]

>sorry i'm rereading your post and I'm not even sure what your issue is with the current definition

Really?

So the definition the CDC used for years to describe vaccines had to be changed, since by their own definition the COVID vaccine wasn't actually a vaccine. And the best part is they didn't even announce & explain the change, they just stealthily modified it on their website.

And you don't understand why so many people think secretly redefining a very important word after the fact to change the meaning is shady? Especially considering government mandates put millions of people in a very uncomfortable spot with employment - you don't see why that would lead to mistrust?

OK. I'm not sure we'll be able to square this circle then.

[nathanaldensr]

Remember, the gaslighters want you to feel crazy for noticing these things, when in fact it's a very rational reaction to have. Remember, they imply that you are the crazy one for mistrusting government, and all past incidents that show government (and the pharmaceutical industry) are not to be trusted are to be merely handwaved away.

It was, quite frankly, a psyop of the highest order. And they're still pushing it, even in this thread.

[internet_user]

The thread dropped off the front page so quickly, despite huge amount of comments.

must be another deboosted keyword in here somewhere!

[sovnade]

Yes - in science, definitions change all the time. We redefined what a planet was and booted Pluto out of the group.

Which part of the new definition do you disagree with as being a valid definition for a modern vaccine? And what difference does it make functionally? The covid vaccines were a product that gave you protection against a disease. Everyone knows that's what a vaccine is. I don't see why it matters what the definition on the site was to begin with.

[josephcsible]

> Which part of the new definition do you disagree with as being a valid definition for a modern vaccine?

Isn't the fundamental point of a vaccine to protect you from a disease? Because that's exactly the part of the definition they removed.

[jameshart]

If our approach to public health and epidemiology isn't changed by our first encounter with a truly global pandemic in a century, we're doing it wrong.

[internet_user]

We've had two pandemics since the typhus/flu pandemics of 1920s.

1. 1968 flu pandemic. 2. 1957 flu pandemic