The vaccines reduce the virus in the blood, the virus that you transmit is in the nasal mucosa. — Isaac

For those following along: notice the strategy. Now it's a shift to differentiating internal and mucosal immunity. Those without a leg to stand on often engage in diversion like this, but let's remember the original claim: vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the virus as unvaccinated people. It's worth repeating that no matter how you slice it, this is incorrect.

We can now move on to the vaccines' effectiveness on mucosal immunity, if we want to. But the data so far suggest a much, much better efficacy rate for nasal infection as well, compared to the unvaccinated, even though with the Delta variant and the waning of immunity these numbers have dropped from in the 90% range to the 40%-80% range. This is still superior to being unvaccinated, which is why every major medical organization in the world is encouraging vaccinations.

So this diversion still doesn't support the original claim.

[...] both mRNA COVID-19 vaccines strongly protect against infection and severe disease

Mayo Clinic

They do urge, however, "further evaluation of mechanisms underlying differences in their effectiveness such as dosing regimens and vaccine composition are warranted." Which is understandable.

So in summary of this odd interchange, we're left where we were, despite lies, ignorance, denial, and misreading, distraction, and delusion: the vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus by lowering both infection (internal and mucosal) -- whether one contracts the virus at all -- and severity of symptoms in breakthrough cases (hence far less hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated who contract the virus).

Lastly, breakthrough cases remain rare indeed, as per the CDC -- and for those without reading comprehension issues.

On the other hand, we have young dummies too, like Lauren Boebert and Margorie Taylor Green. — James Riley

Boebert is a buffoon, as is Greene. The former is undeniably beautiful— so that factored into electability as well.

I hate myself for this, but I can’t feeling a slight attraction to Greene as well. Ugh. I imagine that played a role for Georgia male voters.

But give me AOC any day over all of them.

That’ll be it for my (probably) sexist analysis.

Damn. Imagine getting to look at these women all the time as opposed to Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden. That alone makes it preferable.

Again this is far more a policy and legal matter than something that could be solved by more spending. — ssu

I consider these policies as well. It’s legislation, not simply budget proposals. As you know, they have to make it appear related to the budget to pass reconciliation, but these are real policies being enacted.

you consistently lack in your sophomoric understanding of the science. — Isaac

Says the guy who was completely ignorant of these studies, and then refuses to accept their results because he doesn’t like them—pointing to “complexities,” which can be said of literally everything. That’s impressive.

I didn’t cite just one physician, I cited two large studies which demolished your ignorant claims about infections and transmission.
— Xtrix

The other studies aren't about transmission, they're about infection. Infection and transmission are not the same thing. — Isaac

For anyone following, notice the pattern. When all else fails, simply create a straw man.

I never claimed they were the same.

You cannot transmit a virus you don’t have. If the vaccines lower infections, as was shown, then the virus cannot be transmitted. If the vaccinated were still infected, but symptoms were far less severe, then that’s a separate issue — which has its own studies (in breakthrough cases).

None of this is actually hard to understand. You simply don’t want to understand it, and so have to invent positions to fight against.

Desperate.

from the NEJM September 2021 — Isaac

At least provide a link.

How do you square...

even if that weren’t the comparison, they’re still rare:
— Xtrix

...with

It’s hard to get an exact count since many vaccinated people don’t show symptoms, and therefore, don’t get tested.

I know your grasp of statistics is shockingly poor, but if we don't know the population size we can know the frequency of the observations. — Isaac

How do I square it? Don’t you mean how does the CDC square it? From the exact same citation:

Breakthrough cases are still considered to be very rare.

They then go on to give some data, which you ignore. But ask yourself how they square these two claims that you’re struggling with. Are they bad at statistics? Or are you simply a deluded anti-vaxxer with reading comprehension problems? What’s more likely…?

I’ll explain it to you if you want. But consider it for a second. I’ll repeat what I already quoted, so you can try again:

Washington state data shows there were 21,757 vaccine breakthrough cases among more than 4.1 million vaccinated people from January 17 — August 21, 2021. Although that might sound like a high number, it means that only 0.5% of vaccinated Washingtonians had breakthrough infections. Of the breakthrough cases that we have data for, just 9% required hospitalization and less than 1% died of a COVID-related illness.

0.5% is rare, I’d say. True, we don’t have an EXACT count. You seem to take this to mean that they CDC is therefore unjustified in claiming breakthrough cases are “very rare,” but you simply don’t understand statistics— despite your pathetic attempts to portray this as your speciality.

Primary school level - we divide the number of observations by the size of the population. The second part of that equation is missing. — Isaac

I’ll help: the population was 4.1 million. Breakthrough cases: 21,757. That’s one example from one state, yes— there are others. But that goes to show how this is measured.

You’re just confused, I’m afraid.

So the WHO are wrong then when they say

While a COVID-19 vaccine will prevent serious illness and death, we still don’t know the extent to which it keeps you from being infected and passing the virus on to others. — Isaac

That’s also an old link, last updated in July.

But regardless, they’re talking about all vaccines— the studies I cited only mentioned Pfizer and Moderna. The “extent to which” is worth remembering as well — that’s true, but that’s not questioning their effectiveness of doing so. It just means an individual shouldn’t feel invincible. I think it’s perfectly fine for the WHO to be cautious. No one, including me, would encourage people do be reckless simply because they’re vaccinated — breakthrough cases happen, one can be asymptomatic yet infected, etc.

The claim was that vaccinated people are just as likely to transmit the virus as the unvaccinated. This is simply untrue, and remains untrue — no matter how badly you want to believe otherwise.

You cannot transmit the virus if you don’t have the virus. Vaccinated people do not have the virus as much as unvaccinated people, as is abundantly clear. That alone shows your claim is completely bogus. Now substitute “have” with “infected,” and the same thing applies to transmissibility: you cannot transmit something you don’t have. That fact that you struggle with this connection would be baffling, until one understands you simply don’t want to understand it.

But it doesn't matter! — ssu

It does matter. Free community college, free child care, having Medicare cover eye classes and hearing aids, extending the child tax credit, creating thousands of charging stations, subsidizing clean energy, funding the IRS, etc etc— these are all very beneficial for the majority of Americans and the planet.

Throwing money around doesn’t solve everything, but it’s a start. It’s better than doing nothing.

Your worrying about the debt is misguided, even if these proposals didn’t pay for themselves (which they do). If we can spend 700 billion a year on the military, we can spend 350 billion a year on families and the environment.

The Fed is printing money to buy government bonds, but also corporate debt. If we closed loopholes, prevented stock buybacks, nationalized the banks that needed bailouts, taxed the wealthy at higher rates, ended the stepped up basis, implemented a wealth tax, increased capital gains taxes, ended tax havens, allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices, cut military expenditures, etc— there would be no deficit. The Fed will be tapering by next year anyway, it seems.

All of this is completely reasonable and doable. It’ll happen, but it’ll take time. In the meanwhile, to use the excuse of “we can’t afford it” is just nonsense. Of course we can afford it.

There isn't such a thing as "climate denial". No one denies the climate exists, and most people do not deny that it changes either. — Tzeentch

Are you serious? Come on. :roll:

They also read Ayn Rand. — Wheatley

Indeed.

I'm satisfied that deniers of truth, climate-change, science; that is, deniers of the being of things that are, are influenced by mental illness or personality disorder. — tim wood

I myself don’t go this far, but it really does appear this way at times.

It's very difficult for me to refrain from giving oxygen to these people. — James Riley

For me too— but it’s never productive, because the arguments are so irrational and so damaging that it’s hard to keep my temper, and then I’m not communicating well enough to have an effect anyway.



My 80-year old uncle is the same way. It’s just very sad. I do notice evangelical Christianity is a good predictor of vaccine refusal too.

The simple fact is climate change, suppose it's true, hasn't produced the desired effect at the level of society - governments, the powers that be - where it could be dealt with in the right way. Why? — TheMadFool

There are some obvious reasons— mostly money. The fossil fuel industry is massive, and they lobby, bribe, and propagandize very well.

Limitations:Predominantly male population; lack of data on disease severity, mortality, and effectiveness by SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern; and short-term follow-up.

Emphasis mine, to help your reading comprehension. — Isaac

:lol:

Finally found something to latch on to— the standard note about limitations, of which you’ll find in nearly every study. I guess that disproves the results! Well done.

Talk about desperation.

I wonder if that means pro-vaxxers will stop saying the vaccines are safe and effective...oh no wait, it won't...because it's just the opinion of one fucking physician and no one in their right mind would change their entire belief system on that basis... — Isaac

I didn’t cite just one physician, I cited two large studies which demolished your ignorant claims about infections and transmission.

Keep trying.

But that entirely misses the issue, because breakthrough cases are rare compared to cases in the unvaccinated
— Xtrix

The number of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections reported to CDC are an undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons, especially of asymptomatic or mild infections.
— CDC — Isaac

Yeah, and..?

Reading comprehension problem again, I see. So I’ll help: “compared to cases in the unvaccinated.” Which is obviously true. But even if that weren’t the comparison, they’re still rare:

Fully vaccinated people have much stronger protection against COVID-19 compared to those who aren’t. Vaccinated people who get infected are less likely to experience symptoms (if any), compared to those who are unvaccinated. Vaccinated people are also likely to recover faster, even against delta.
CDC data shows that over 99.99% of people who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 did not die or even require hospitalization. The highest hospitalization rates remain in areas with low vaccination rates.

That said, some vaccinated people can still get delta variant breakthrough infections and spread the virus to others. Previous variants produced less viral loads in fully vaccinated people than in unvaccinated people. In contrast, the delta variant seems to produce the same high amount of viral load in both unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people.

How common are breakthrough cases?
Breakthrough cases are still considered to be very rare. They appear to be most common among new variant strains. It’s hard to get an exact count since many vaccinated people don’t show symptoms, and therefore, don’t get tested.
Washington state data shows there were 21,757 vaccine breakthrough cases among more than 4.1 million vaccinated people from January 17 — August 21, 2021. Although that might sound like a high number, it means that only 0.5% of vaccinated Washingtonians had breakthrough infections. Of the breakthrough cases that we have data for, just 9% required hospitalization and less than 1% died of a COVID-related illness.

— CDC

I wasn’t expecting such a weak response from you…but not surprised.

If you continue to spread this idea that vaccines generally make you unable to spread the virus (apart from a few 'rare' breakthrough cases) you'll worsen the problem. — Isaac

Given that this is confirmed by the evidence, I will continue to make that claim until shown otherwise. In breakthrough cases, where the individual is actually infected, they can transmit the virus— yes, that’s true. I never claimed otherwise. To claim vaccinated people spread the virus as much as unvaccinated people—no, that’s not true. With has now been demonstrated, and which you prediction ignore by pointing to the “limitations” section of the study.

It is dangerous to spread the myth that vaccines reduce transmission in all but a few 'rare' cases. — Isaac

And yet these studies say exactly that. Odd.

It’s almost as if you don’t want it to be the case…

:chin:

My concern was about messaging: if you're vaccinated you can't transmit. That's not true. — frank

So your "main concern" was, as usual, a complete fabrication, since no one here has once said that. Or perhaps you struggle with reading comprehension -- which is fine, but at least give us a heads up about that.

How bizarre it is to have to create straw man after straw man, an imaginary enemy, just to feel good about yourself when you tear it down. Maybe sad is a better word.

I think it's worthwhile to take a moment here and just reflect on the absurdity of this situation.

Here we are in a pandemic, and we all want to get back to normal. I also assume we don't want to harm other people if we don't have to. We have a vaccine that is very safe, very effective, and helps slow or stop the spread of the virus.

And yet we're here, on a philosophy forum (where you'd think has a higher level of critical thinking skills and respect for science), still debating with people (mostly trolls) about whether we should get vaccinated or not.

It's like playing whack-a-mole. One absurd claim made and debunked, another two pop up.

It loops us back to the OP question:

They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens, which is interesting psychologically. But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational yet "on the fence"? — Xtrix

It comes down to whether or not anyone who's "on the fence" is even listening. I guess we have to assume they are -- otherwise this is an exercise in futility. Although I have learned a bit about communication, psychology, and delusion.

It's a mistake to spread the rumor that vaccinated people can't transmit.

The main reason to be vaccinated is to potentially save your own life. — frank

At this point you’re just lying. Either that or you haven't been paying attention.

Vaccinated people can transmit the virus, when they're infected. Those are called breakthrough cases. Whether those who are vaccinated and get infected spread the virus as readily as those who are infected and unvaccinated is undetermined at this time. But that entirely misses the issue, because breakthrough cases are rare compared to cases in the unvaccinated -- which is why we see the unvaccinated account for the vast majority of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

Also, the "main reason is to potentially save your life" depends on your motivations. If you're relatively young and healthy, or otherwise don't care about getting the flu or COVID because you think you can handle it, and you refuse the flu shot or the COVID shot, you're simply overlooking the fact that it's not necessarily all about you. This apparently has to be repeated over and over again.

I don't trust the pharmaceutical industry
— Isaac

Bit hasty there? Distrusting diabetics die. :death: — jorndoe

No no no, it's only to be distrusted when it's been POLITICIZED. Same with anything in medicine and science: if we're whipped into a frenzy, we know more than the experts and it's important to ask questions, be skeptical, etc.

Everything else: no questions, no skepticism, no thought. Insulin injections? Perfectly fine. But let's try to change that right now and hope it catches on: insulin is part of a Big Pharma plot to keep those with diabetes reliant on their medicine! It's a HOAX!

Imagine if social media existed during the polio vaccine rollout?

"Salk is a Nazi trying to experiment on us!"

You can tell he’s a scholar, can’t you?

Makes Isaac look reasonable.

They only know what they read in pop headlines. — MondoR

Pop headlines…Web MD is pop journalism? The study they are discussing is from the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Eh, nevermind.

What the heck are you talking about? Trying to switch direction?? — MondoR

I’ve been talking about the exact same thing. Try reading and thinking before responding like a child.

Keep googling, maybe you’ll find something from Infowars.

Anti-vaxxers are funny.

pop journalism propaganda. — MondoR

The Annals of Internal Medicine? :rofl:

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-1577

From your Googled source:

A new study found that people vaccinated against coronavirus who have also contracted the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 could have similar peak levels of the virus as people who have not had a vaccination.

See the bold emphasis.

Now let’s see if you can understand what that means…

No? Okay, I’ll just give the answer:

This is dealing with breakthrough cases. You don’t seem to understand what that is, so I encourage you to read about it.

Or simply go back to sleep.

I also came across this article in the Atlantic by a practicing physician, worth a read:

No, Vaccinated People Are Not ‘Just as Likely’ to Spread the Coronavirus as Unvaccinated People

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/620161/

In the aftermath of the Provincetown announcement, many who had gotten their shots were confused about what the news meant for them, especially when headlines seemed to imply that vaccinated individuals are as likely to contract and transmit COVID-19 as the unvaccinated. But this framing missed the single most important factor in spreading the coronavirus: To spread the coronavirus, you have to have the coronavirus. And vaccinated people are far less likely to have the coronavirus—period. If this was mentioned at all, it was treated as an afterthought.

I wonder if this means anti-vaxxers and their enablers will now stop saying the vaccinated and unvaccinated both spread the virus equally?

:chin:

I’m going with: no.

No, there has been more research since January, which the article itself said was needed.
— Xtrix

Which of the three facts you claim so obviously show vaccines reduce transmission did this 'research' only recently discover? — Isaac

I’m sorry you’re having trouble reading, so I’ll repeat what I said:

Let’s try this in numbered form:

(1) If vaccines protect against COVID infections and
(2) you cannot transit COVID if you’re not infected, then
(3) who is more likely to spread COVID? The vaccinated or the unvaccinated? — Xtrix

Then (emphasis mine):

This would seem to make the (1) claim currently unsupported, yes. Until you realize that this article was last updated 8 months ago, and is originally from January. — Xtrix

The transmissibility is lowered even with lower symptoms, which is established. But with lowered infections, even more so — you can’t transmit it if you don’t have it. Research seems to have confirmed the latter as well, which isn’t always the case in vaccines:

'Gold Standard' Study Confirms mRNA Vaccines Prevent Infection

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210722/gold-standard-study-mrna-vaccines-prevent-infection

July 22, 2021 -- Clinical trials of mRNA vaccines have consistently demonstrated high effectiveness against COVID-19, but now a large, real-world study confirms that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are more than 95% effective in preventing confirmed infection.

Emphasis mine, to help your reading comprehension.

Here’s another, from Forbes (in case you thought this knowledge was obscure):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/03/30/moderna-and-pfizer-vaccines-prevent-infection-as-well-as-disease-key-questions-remain/amp/

According to the study, which was conducted on nearly 4,000 healthcare workers, first responders, and other essential workers at the frontlines in eight locations across the country, the mRNA vaccines are 90 percent effective at preventing infection. That means in addition to stopping the development of Covid-19 symptoms, they can stop the disease from spreading from one person to another, too.

Predictably, you’ll find a way to ignore all this. I post it for others’ benefit, however, not yours.

This is relevant to the question @Harry Hindu was asking too.

Woah, so the way vaccines interact with viruses has changed since January! — Isaac

No, there has been more research since January, which the article itself said was needed.

But keep trying.

From the article you cite:

“ verdict: Missing context. There is no conclusive evidence to claim COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent people spreading the disease. Scientists are not yet sure of how the vaccine affects transmission – and this is currently undergoing research. People are still required to follow restrictions even after vaccination to account for this uncertainty.“

This would seem to make the (1) claim currently unsupported, yes. Until you realize that this article was last updated 8 months ago, and is originally from January.

But keep fighting the good fight, Isaac.

Take a look at this for something more recent:

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/covid/covid-19-post-vaccination-data-082321.pdf

Let’s try this in numbered form:

(1) If vaccines protect against COVID infections and
(2) you cannot transit COVID if you’re not infected, then
(3) who is more likely to spread COVID? The vaccinated or the unvaccinated?

:chin:

I know this is a tough one, but think about it for a second.

vaccinated do not spread the virus as much as the unvaccinated.
— Xtrix

This is why you should be totally ignored. — MondoR

Says an anti-vaxxer who doesn’t know what breakthrough cases are.

The vaccinated are far less likely to spread the virus, because they’re far less to be infected by the virus. It’s that simple.
— Xtrix

Rofl! It's already been shown the virus load is the same for vaccinated same vaccinated. — MondoR

As an anti-vaxxer, I know there’s a mental block to this stuff, but I’ll repeat it again for anyone else listening: since the vaccines protect against the virus extremely well, the vaccinated do not spread the virus as much as the unvaccinated. Not even close.

In breakthrough cases, the evidence is still out about whether the vaccinated who get infected have the same viral loads as the unvaccinated who get infected. But there’s evidence to suggest they don’t.

What do they all have in common? Some here have called them stupid but I don't think that's it — TheMadFool

I don’t think so either.

This all is simply a way to sustain the economy by more debt financing. — ssu

I don’t think you’re referring to the reconciliation bill. What I’m talking about includes measures for child care, climate change, and many other provisions that would be good for this country.

True, it involves debt. But the 350 billion a year is nothing next to the 700 billion we spend on military contracts. Apparently we can afford that every year.

I don’t buy this sudden interest in the debt. The debt isn’t the problem. This bill also pays for itself in multiple ways. But even if it didn’t, given that borrowing is essentially free right now, it’s the best time to spend some money on things that matter, especially climate change.

As I pointed out, even the vaccinated can carry and spread the virus. So again, what is the point of vaccinating? — Harry Hindu

The vaccinated are far less likely to spread the virus, because they’re far less to be infected by the virus. It’s that simple.

Which you’d know if you bothered to read anything.

but I don't trust what the government and the state-run media says. — Harry Hindu

Or medical experts, apparently. Fine— then don’t pretend like it’s only a matter of not having your very original questions answered.

I do know how science works. You only arrive at the correct answer after making all possible mistakes. — Harry Hindu

That’s not close to how science works.

Anti-vaxxer says what?

One of my many flaws, apologies! — TheMadFool

No problem. Just one man’s opinion anyway.

It's a zombie apocalypse! — TheMadFool

Why are you never funny?

That doesn't mean the plants will stop burning coal. And of course China is not suspending its own coal plant building program. — Bitter Crank

All true. Still, given how much China is investing in foreign infrastructure, that’s a significant reduction.

Not at all. Just pointing out that the madmen who created the virus are now, in high shrill and pure hysteria, trying to force everyone to partake in their madness. Their rationale: well heck, we are all dying sooner or later. — MondoR

Anti-vaxxer says what?

China announces no more foreign coal plant building

EPA will finalize rules to faze out HFCs.

Couple pieces of somewhat good news.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/world/asia/china-coal.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/573522-epa-finalizes-rule-cutting-use-of-potent-greenhouse-gas-used-in%3famp

are, have done a bad job of making their case. Why else is there so much controversy? Compare climate science to physics and consider how the latter has a better reputation than the former. — TheMadFool

I mentioned why there’s controversy. The controversy has been manufactured. Just as the “controversy” about smoking and cancer was manufactured by tobacco companies, fossil fuel companies have deliberately created controversy here— and it’s all documented.

The controversies in physics don't threaten the pocket books of the billionaires. — James Riley

The evidence in physics doesn’t, yes. The evidence of climate change does, just like the evidence for evolution threatens Biblical literalists.

You two are just fun to pick on. — frank

Right, that’s what’s happening. :lol:

You are all hung up on sticking stuff into yourself and people. — MondoR

:rofl:

Another anti-vaxx troll.

62% vaccinated -- better than the US. Apparently less anti-vaxxer bullshit/pushback in Sweden.
— Xtrix

Nuanced, not hysterical. — MondoR

So pushing for vaccines is "nuanced"? OK, so the US is nuanced as well -- just with far more pushback from hysterical anti-vaxxers. Got it.

US policy is not based on hysteria, it's based on the recommendations of medical experts
— Xtrix

The same chaps who created the virus. — MondoR

That's likely untrue, but the fact you believe it is telling. If you want to learn about it, see here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

Even if it were true, it was created by a Chinese lab. I'm talking about the United States. Those aren't the "same chaps." You really don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

Like most anti-vaxxers.

Climate change denial.

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[3][4][5] Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming self-label as "climate change skeptics"] which several scientists have noted is an inaccurate description. Climate change denial can also be implicit when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action. Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism, pseudoscience, or propaganda.

frank and your initial comments were fundamentally stupid. — James Riley

One's a climate denier and the other either is one or tries to sound like one. So don't expect too much.

The trouble with vaccinations is that no one knows what the long term effects will be. — MondoR

We do know.

This is one of the many claims that anti-vaxxers often use. In the "long run" we're all dead, as Keynes once said. 6 billion shots given, it's been 9 months and given a level of scrutiny unlike anything else in history -- I think it's safe to say they're safe. They're also remarkably effective.

It's unfortunate that scientists created a virus that killed millions — MondoR

This is unproven. But even if true, and it was created in a lab, scientists also created nuclear energy. That doesn't mean they had in mind Hiroshimo.

I don't consider them a good source for advice. — MondoR

And what, pray tell, *is* a "good source" besides virologists, epidemiologists, physicians, etc?

Now, unlike the U.S model, which is based upon pure hysteria and permanent pharmaceutical spending, the Swedish have done quite well. — MondoR

62% vaccinated -- better than the US. Apparently less anti-vaxxer bullshit/pushback in Sweden.

The US policy is not based on hysteria, it's based on the recommendations of medical experts -- just like in Sweden. The hysterics are coming from those, like you, who buy into the many false and misleading claims of anti-vaxxers, and anti-vaxxers themselves. The same people claiming the vaccines magnetized people, would sterilize them, had a chip implanted that could track them, etc. etc. I guess that's not "hysteria."

I had a mild case, and my long-term immune prospects are quite good. — MondoR

Wonderful. I guess that proves it.

It'll be precisely people like you who run to the vaccines when a virus comes around that's more deadly. And it'll happen.