What vaccine offers 100% protection from the disease?
By what metric are they too risky to be considered vaccines? What other vaccines are you comparing against, what are the risks you're citing?
Vaccines have traditionally been understood to be highly effective at preventing infection. They are supposed to immunize. It's unrealistic to expect 100%
prevention from every vaccine. That's not realistic. 99%? Sure. 98%? Ok. 95%? That's weak, but at least explain with an asterisk.
But what are we at now? 50% prevention from the Delta variant? Hard to say...it's a moving target, the virus mutates, and efficacy wanes over time. (also, which specific versions of the virus are we talking about, and after what dose, and when was it given, and to what specific population are we referring to and what are their unique health and immune system characteristics ?).
Sorry, these injections aren't worthy of being sold as a vaccines. It's deceptive, and intentionally so. Our betters are depending on the well earned positive reputation of successful traditional vaccines to promote these new interventions.
Protection is a different category. The "vaccines" (including the non mRNA vaccine J&J) are offering a non trivial to significant degree of protection. It isn't anywhere close to 100%, but it's still helpful. That's all a good thing. Let's not oversell it.
Risk is a different category. A vaccine can be highly effective at immunizing, yet still carry significant health risks outside the disease. That doesn't mean it isn't a vaccine. Those are different things. Unfortunately, there isn't much data to go off of then the VAERS system, and that has it's flaws. But it's all we've got.
FWIW, I know 2 people who had severe anaphylactic reactions (serious enough for hospitazation), and 2 others with heart problems immediately after the Pfizer and Moderna injections. I'm not alone. Sure, those are anecdotes, but if the "vaccines" were as "safe and effective" as our authorities emphatically insisted....then that shouldn't happen. If repeatable real world observations are radically out of sync with what "what the science says", then maybe there's something wrong with how we "conduct science".
As a general rule, I don't find the medical profession to be particularly adept at scientifically evaluating evidence. As for our governmental bureaucracies....that's not even a primary motivation.
That's not to say these new injections aren't worthwhile. I take a pretty libertarian approach, let people asses the costs and benefits, and give an informed consent. And yes, it's difficult assess the risk. I don't think the immediate health risks of mRNA injections are unacceptably high for everyone (but I do for my kids). Long term, I don't see a particularly strong signal...but then again we suck at anticipating the long term effects of pharmacological interventions.
I don't require 100% safety for any treatment. Weigh the pros and cons as best you can.
Informed consent....that's supposed to be a thing.
What is your background in studying vaccine efficacy and safety?
My background matters little. I'm an engineer by training for what it's worth. Whatever. I'm a guy who's unwilling to submit to Orwellian B.S. attempts at control with unsatisfying evidence just because the credentialed experts think we're too stupid and helpless to notice things that aren't true. Or that we shouldn't notice other things that do strongly appear to be true (like SOME therapeutic interventions have merit, or that natural immunity is a thing) because they are inconvenient to the narrative of "VACCINATE EVERYONE NOW, AND EVERY 6 MONTHS UNTIL FOREVER, AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T IS AN EVIL FOOL."
Tangent - The day I uncritically accept the current conventional wisdom of our medical authorities regarding ANYTHING having to do with long term health...well that's the day I give up and resign myself to the same sorry state of health as most everyone else. Walk around a hospital a minute and look at the staff. How's that working out?
I'm also 46 yr old Infantryman with no health issues, maintain an exceptionally high level of physical fitness (for any age), lean and very muscular. Nothing hurts, I almost never get sick, appear to have exemplary metabolic health, and have no complaints whatsoever. I'm a unicorn in a mass of broken people. I got that way with some luck, and also whole lot of critical thought in pursuit of the most likely path towards success, regardless of that the current expert advice is. 10 years ago, when I "trusted the experts", I was 40 lbs overweight, and enjoyed joint, skin, digestion, and lethargy problems. Since then, every time I've deviated from conventional wisdom of the experts...I was damned glad I did.
So no, I don't default to "trust the science", not because science isn't good, but because we as humans suck at it. That applies to our credentialed experts and institutions. Eventually, "science" has to make peace with observed reality, or it's bad science.
What does "leaky" mean in this context?
"Leaky" - When the average guy can name multiple people off the top of their head who've been fully vaccinated, and still got COVID, including some who have a rough time of it....then yes, it's pretty safe to say it's a leaky vaccine. I can't give a precise definition as to what % of virus escape through the net of the "vaccinated" population and infecting others constitutes leaky. But it's pretty disappointing if you were expecting a vaccine to immunize and stop transmission.
FWIW, I'm glad that we have these new COVID injections available. On balance, I think they are a good thing, and appropriate for many, many people. If Trump got nominated for the Nobel Prize for fast-tracking COVID vaccine development, well then good on him, there's been less deserving people. It would also be hilarious to watch.
The mRNA technology is encouraging. But the current mRNA injections aren't anywhere close to as good as they've been advertised, they do have risks (which that we're not supposed to notice or talk about.) They are a valuable tool, but not a panacea, and they probably aren't even the most important intervention.
The current "vaccines" are prototypes. I hope and expect they will get better.
They COVID injections are also a new intervention, being tried for the first time in a very, very complex system. Our medical system's track record at anticipating problems when trying new pharmacological interventions in the most complex system (the human body)....sucks. Beware of unnecessary medical interventions.
So far, despite all, I'm encouraged. It's a valuable intervention, and probably a good idea for those at any serious risk. And that's not to say it's easy to determine exactly who is at serious risk.
But let's not pretend we are gods now and truly know the long term impacts of new MRNA injections on the human body. Personally, I'm concerned about the long term effects on my innate and adaptive immune systems, as well as the selection pressure the mRNA treatments put on the virus. That doesn't exhaust the possibilities.
My main point of all of this is be honest.
I generally think the COVID mRNA injections are a good thing. But if you want to destroy trust as fast as possible, then oversell benefits, and ridicule and silence those who notice costs. And by all means, silence those who notice there are other paths to success (natural immunity, other therapeutics).
Don't go Orwell on us and change language like the CDC (vaccination went from providing immunity to offering protection) and expect all of us to just fall in line.
www.nobelprize.org
R I did my own research. I've included my references, I've repeatedly stated that I'm not a doctor. I'm waiting for literally anyone else to do the same though. So far I seem to be the only one able to provide evidence for what I'm talking about.
