HockeyDad wrote:I don’t know if I would call it a failed vaccine but we had to change the definition to remove “immunity”. I guess I buy into the “you will get less sick and have a less chance of hospitalization” story. That would put it in the same category as vitamin C or zinc based on the definition that contained the word “immunity”.
If you take a lot of vitamin C you will have less chance of catching a cold or flu or getting very sick from it. I’ll send you my invoice for three trillion dollars. Now proceed to horde toilet paper.
OK,
failed might be an extreme word. In the beginning it was hailed as cure all and everyone was pretty much forced to get a shot and carry a vaccine passport. If not, you were not allowed to work or attend schools, go to the movies, eat in restaurants, fly on a plane, cross state lines, etc... without proof of the jab and follow up boosters.
I'd agree to that. But to call it a true vaccine is, in my opinion, a farce. In the same vein, I wouldn't call the annual flu shot a vaccine - it has (at best, historically) a 50/50 chance of you catching the flu. Vegas wouldn't accept a bet on those odds. Might as well flip a coin on if it works or not.
The flu shot, as with the Rona shot may lessen the chance of being hospitalized or encountering a sever case of it but it ain't protecting you from catching it. Neither of them are a true vaccine, in my book... just preventive maintenance for those in high risk populations.