rfenst wrote:B.S. At what rate of protection or inoculation do you deem it "effective."
You tell me counselor. Does a vaccine that doesn't protect the individual from being reinfected or transmitting it within merely months of being inoculated sound effective to you?
If so, you have a low threshold of what constitutes effective.
And I'm not talking about the quoted 95% or what ever number they've been using COVID vaccine effectiveness. I get it, nothing is 100%. But they are talking about
everyone will need a booster within months, not the 5% of special cases.
Everyone!This isn't science, this is shooting from the hip and making it up as you go along.
I'll let you go through the list of common vaccines for common illnesses (polio, mumps, Hep, measles, small pox, HPV, tetanus, tuberculosis...) Find one, that after full inoculation, recommends that it be boostered within months and possibly on an ongoing basis. You'll probably mention the seasonal/annual flu shots - OK there's one but that is only historically been 50% ish effective. That's a coin flip. I wouldn't classify it as effective. Vegas wouldn't even take bets on those odds.
Maybe you want to establish a "new normal" on the definition and criteria for effectiveness. That way we can shoehorn the COVID vax into that "new normal" while ignoring precedent on what we have been accustomed to and what we should expect from effective vaccines.