This just implies there's a misunderstanding about the role of vaccines. Vaccines do not confer "immunity" in the sense that you cannot catch something. If you think it does, then there's a fundamental misunderstanding about infections...Observe wrote: ↑Mon, 24. Mar 25, 23:44 Some vaccines confer immunity, others don't. COVID vaccines don't make people immune from infection or prevent them from transmitting the virus to other people. I'm not saying those vaccines are completely ineffective, just "dubiously effective". Evidence does point to them tending to reduce likelihood of infection, as well as reducing the intensity of sickness. So that is a good thing. On the other hand, we have the measles vaccine, which IS effective, DOES confer immunity and DOES prevent infection.
Here's the "immunity" part definition from bad AI search:
To be "immune" implies your body has been trained to deal with and can therefore recognise, attack, and defeat, the infecting "thing". Measles vaccine, for example, that you say "IS effective, DOES confer immunity and DOES prevent infection". You can still "catch" measles by being near an infected person who is shedding the virus via the airbourne methods (which is how it's transmitted, so easily breathed in). Your body can fight off the virus before it "takes hold" and develops into Measles (which is an infection); you don't show the symptoms of it nor suffer side effects before your body has totally overcome the invader. So the "immunity" is that you can defeat the virus when it enters your body. And the terming of "immunity"...Vaccine immunity, also known as vaccine-induced immunity, refers to the protection against a specific disease that the body develops after being exposed to a weakened or inactive form of the disease-causing agent (like a virus or bacteria) through vaccination.
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccines/index.html
Why is that important?One dose of MMR vaccine is:
93% effective against measles
72% effective against mumps
97% effective against rubella
Two doses of MMR vaccine are:
97% effective against measles
86% effective against mumps
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... il/measlesAs many as 1 in 20 children with measles will get pneumonia, which is the major cause of death from measles. One in 1,000 children with measles will develop encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), which can lead to brain damage. One or two children per 1,000 with measles will die from it. Finally, 7 to 10 years after contracting measles, one person per 100,000 will develop subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) and inevitably die of this devastating brain inflammation.
Measles is 9 out of 10 contacts infection rate (so 90%) if you've had the 2 doses of the MMR vaccine, you're 97% chance of being "immunised" against measles. Not 100%. 97%. Also, that "mortality" rate is tiny, so why bother huh? Oh wait, it's lower for Covid right, so that's the difference...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0X24006650A decrease in COVID-19-related deaths was observed in 2022 for pediatric age groups (3–11 and 12–17) with relatively higher vaccination coverage. However, no decrease was observed for the 0–2 year old age group, which had the longest delay in access to immunization and lowest vaccination coverage. When compared to unvaccinated populations in 2022, we observe an 8–15-fold reduction in cumulative death rates for pediatric populations vaccinated with 1 or more doses, and a 16–18-fold reduction for those vaccinated with 2 or more doses. Historical analysis shows that for diseases for which vaccination is now compulsory in many countries, pre-vaccine-rollout mortality was lower than COVID-19 deaths during 2020–2022.
Think the death rate is approx half that of measles. So again, what's the "it's not effective" metric if 93% reduction in deaths isn't sufficient?
Covid vaccines are for an entirely different type of virus, one that mutates frequently - causing new strains (that may be more or less serious). Just like the "flu" vaccine, they'd be immunising against the last cocktail of greatest known variants of the overall virus. This doesn't happen with Rubeola (measles); there's no seasonal variant.
Also, "effectiveness" is about how it performs in the real world - and huge part of that is herd immunity. It takes *years* to gain herd immunity. Additionally, you could be asymptomatic - and in that instance, you may be infected... but showing no symptoms - meaning for immunised-against-"working" vaccines aren't necessarily quite what you think. We don't have epic pandemics of measles as herd immunity in most countries exist. We did not have any immunity against Covid/SARS2 and it swept the world in no time at all; resulting in millions of deaths.
https://www.who.int/data/stories/the-tr ... -mortality
Finally, the vaccination can/does reduce the impact of the virus's outcomes (severity and follow on complications), which is absolutely the reason to also have the vaccine if you're in a vulnerable-to-serious complications group.
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-car ... cines-work#
If everyone had been vaccinated, the virus would probably still have ripped around the world (it does with flu, after all). But the death toll may have been significantly lower (as in... 20 times less). More chilling, without vaccines, the death toll could well have been far higher (as in 10 times higher).
The statistical data on population wide numbers of individuals shows a direct correlation between mortality rate from SARS2/COVID and vaccination. There's no denying it. It also shows which demographics are most likely to develop those serious complications. Similar to flu. Which is why older people (pension age) or vulnerable (immune compromised) are offered the vaccine shots for flu. The vaccine isn't 100% effective (it only vaccinates against most *likely* strain, not all strains) as it mutates, so it won't prevent any individual from catching flu, nor developing serious complications - but on a population scale, it does. And the statistics that back it up are clear to see.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... tusengland
The problem people have with RJK is that he does not have any qualifications nor rigorous, scientific study into these matters; he's got his personal opinion that's formed on... well, it's certainly not science. And that person gets to make decisions for *everyone*. And that becomes the Govt line/advice. So whether he's just saying "they need to be safer..." - he's saying that peddling false narratives about autism from vaccines. He's saying that peddling a load of cobblers that is going to *directly* impact uptake of vaccines, which could remove herd immunity, which could therefore cause outbreaks, death, misery within the population. All because *HIS* opinion matters.
I'm one of those who'd like a mechanic to fix his car, a plumber to fix his plumbing, an electrician to fix the electrics, and a doctor to fix medical issues. I don't think having your dustbin man, the librarian, the tarrot card reader and a Duck with a crystal ball are suitable alternatives. Despite what they may individually say...
There's nothing wrong with his entire "America eats crap, that needs to change" line; that's backed by actual health statistics, data, providers and science. There's nothing wrong with the scientifically backed "some additives are unnecessary and have links to causing cancers or other health issues" - again, all good. Personally agree with the "don't just put crap in food for sake of putting crap in food" (e.g. pumping it full of syrup).
You can absolutely support that view. But it's very odd, in the fact of *actual* scientific data and statistics, from around the world, to follow his vaccination guff. People absolutely can support one of his views, and ridicule him for the other(s). The question is, why should USA put up with him. Are there not others who'd do the health part without the endanger populations part?