1962
Vaccine research vs. anti-vax research
(lemmy.sdf.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
1962 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
53101 readers
678 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
The choice was lose your income, travel no where, and gather with zero loved ones - or take this vaccine we just came out with, but havent finished testing lol.
It's kind of funny that I've been pretty civil despite all the name calling, and you're the one blocking me.
I'm not in the US - but also thank you for responding without malice.
Losing income is a big deal, especially with dependants, but that aside - you're right about your point of possibly endangering others.
However If the vaccine fully protected you (as it was advertised at first) this wouldn't be the case - anyone who was vaxxed would've been immune. Also having natural immunity is just as good, if not better - but instead of doing any sort of antibody testing, we stuck with "be vaccinated or lose your job". Wouldn't anti body testing instead of mandates be the pinnacle of making sure those around you are safe? Especially at a time when we didn't know the risks or effectiveness of the vaccine.
No company or government agency claimed the vaccine fully protected anyone, the efficacy results were published long before the vaccines were made available to the public. Natural immunity isn't better at all, it's as good in some cases, but less consistently so across the board and hybrid immunity was better than either. No, antibody testing would be unnecessary overkill vs just vaccinating everyone for this reason.