>>13469494>You think the inactivated vaccines being used elsewhere are sterilizing? I doubt it.I'm not sure, I've never really been into vaccines before being nearly forced to take this one. But my understanding is that's at least how people think they work, so the distinction still serves a purpose in highlighting the difference. I generally try to have the smallest attack surface as possible when talking about these things, and try to keep it strictly logical, not empirical.
>very high prevention rate, which included preventing asymptomatic infections. Source? This was definitely not in the original studies published, which didn't even test the participants for sars-cov-2.
>In those who were infected, viral loads were low.I swear I was just reading that those who had contracted the 'Delta variant' and were vaccinated had slightly higher viral loads.
One of the issues with the current state of studies is that these empirical methods are only valuable with a sufficiently large aggregate of studies being done, and we don't have that right now. It's appalling to me that the state is pushing things to the degree they are without adherence to proper scientific skepticism.
>it's obvious efficacy has fallenThis much seems 100% true, however. IMO, if you're getting a vaccine today, you should only logically commit to getting boosters for the rest of your life unless some better tech is released.
