(10-03-2021 07:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 06:55 PM)aardWolf Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 06:53 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 06:34 PM)aardWolf Wrote:  

(10-03-2021 06:33 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  What are you talking about? Plain and simple it's not a Vaccine, it's a Shot. What else to you have that I and Others don't clearly understand?

That nut job part of your brain that claims it isn’t a vaccine is the same part that thinks Biden is going to resign in disgrace and they will appoint Trump president any day now.

Your homework assignment… Go read about R numbers. Find out what it is for people with COVID with and without being fully vaccinated, and then explain to the rest of the class why the gap is a bad thing.

If you don’t know what an R number is, you really lose any standing to be arguing the epidemiological merit of getting vaccinated.

OK, I get that it’s over your head. Please give us the Merriam Webster definition of a vaccine, and explain how the COVID vaccines don’t meet that criteria.

any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing an innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production.

Now go look up immunity.

vac·cine
/vakˈsēn/

a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.


Your argument is that because it doesn’t provide 100% immunity then it isn’t a vaccine? Then neither is ANY vaccine. If only the scientific community had conferred with you before calling it a vaccine.

When's the last time we had a problem with Polio or Smallpox in the USA?