Not a chance. Being an "anti-vaxxer" has nothing to do with it. It's not something like polio, and my odds of dying from it are near zero in my age bracket.
A large portion of the population has probably already had it without even realizing it. Something like 1 in 2 infections are asymptomatic, especially for younger people.
Show me a virus thats 99% deadly and I still probably wouldn't take the vaccine because at that point, I'd rather go camping in the wilderness for a few weeks, wait for the people to get infected and die off and then I can come back to whatever is left of civilization lmao
To be fair, 90% success rate just means it further decreases your chance of dying from it by ten times, but for the average person, that's just dropping abysmally small to infinitesimal. The vaccine is for those people who are immunocompromised or otherwise especially vulnerable, and everyone else can just go on with their lives.
As a medical student, I can actually help explain this. The key is how many varieties of the disease there are, referred to in the medical community as serotypes. A vaccine can only protect against one serotype, so diseases with multiple serotypes would require an equal number of vaccines. The flu is a problem because it has a modular serotype with two interchangeable parts, referred to as H and N (e.g. H1N1), with a lot of possible combinations thereof.
The only reason we have any success with flu vaccines is because Australia's flu season serves as a mostly-accurate forecast of our own. Without that, vaccinating for the flu would be like trying to win at a slot machine. Another example of a disease we can't vaccinate is the common cold, because it has over two hundred serotypes. Complete vaccination against the common cold would require over two hundred vaccines PER PERSON.
Now Cov-SARS-2, commonly known as Covid, is nearly identical to the SARS outbreak we had a few years back, so despite the hysterics of the media, we had a lot of accurate assumptions about it from day one. The big one here is it has only one serotype. A disease with only one serotype only requires one vaccine to easily remove it from the population entirely. For this reason, a flu vaccine is a poor comparison; it's much more akin to an MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella: it's actually three vaccines in one needle) and when was the last time you met someone with one of those?
The virus' existence isn't a scam, but the response to it definitely was. Without Fauci and the WHO telling everyone to disregard it until March, we could have had it shut down more quickly than the original SARS.
The first and largest red flag for me was way back in like March, when one of the talking heads (I think it was Fauci) said "Everyone will have to be exposed, either by catching it, or by getting a vaccine."
Well, he wasn't wrong with that statement. With any virus, the majority of us DO NEED EXPOSURE to end the damage being done.
I'm only 35 but this was taught to me in either health class or biology:
The more deadly a virus is, the faster it will kill off the victims and burn out. The less deadly it is, the more able it is to spread.
If it is less deadly, more and more people will develop immunity and stop spreading it. This will cause the virus to burn out as well, just slower than a deadly virus.
RNA is unstable thus mutates more. This is why the common cold hasn't been cured. The faster we can kill off the virus by letting us all get immunity, the less opportunity it has to have a worse mutation spread to others. The longer we allow this to spread slowly, the higher chances we have of an actual dangerous version being mutated and spread around.
Not really unfortunately. Time is not a real factor for viruses mutating, its the same factor as it is with all life, Reproduction. More infections = more reproduction = more chances for that deadly mutant version to come into existence. Time is just the board the game is played on, so its easy to mistake it as a factor.
The cold circulates constantly not because of time, but because it mutates into stable variants far more often than there are people it can infect. If we magically infected everyone at the same time with a type of cold, that cold would die out, but in many it would mutate into new variants, some of which would spread around leading to a net gain of total cold variants running around.
Time is in the reproduction. The faster it dies, due to higher mortality, the less time it has to reproduce thus mutate. The slower it dies, due to allowing it to slowly fester and spread, the more time it has to reproduce thus mutate.
Yeah, at minimum, I'd wait and see how it goes. These vaccines can have adverse side effects even with a lot of testing. I'm not anti-vax or conspiracist about it, but those are regular, every day facts about vaccines.
If the elderly try it out and it doesn't blow up a year later, maybe I'll give it a go.
Not a chance. Being an "anti-vaxxer" has nothing to do with it. It's not something like polio, and my odds of dying from it are near zero in my age bracket.
A large portion of the population has probably already had it without even realizing it. Something like 1 in 2 infections are asymptomatic, especially for younger people.
Why take a vaccine with a 90% success rate when it's for a virus I have a 99.998% chance of surviving?
^Exactly! I'm better off developing an natural immunity to it....
We all are.... and humanity would be better if we left more shit alone.
Bingo.
Show me a virus thats 99% deadly and I still probably wouldn't take the vaccine because at that point, I'd rather go camping in the wilderness for a few weeks, wait for the people to get infected and die off and then I can come back to whatever is left of civilization lmao
To be fair, 90% success rate just means it further decreases your chance of dying from it by ten times, but for the average person, that's just dropping abysmally small to infinitesimal. The vaccine is for those people who are immunocompromised or otherwise especially vulnerable, and everyone else can just go on with their lives.
I agree with you there.
However, our flu vaccines are barely effective (if at all) and we've been doing those for a long time.
Feel free to browse the CDC and other reporting agency websites on historical flu numbers and compare that to when the flu shots started.
Why would I think this vaccine is any more effective?
Hell, if it is actually 90% more effective that would only further prove (to me) that the entire virus was a fucking scam, which it is.
As a medical student, I can actually help explain this. The key is how many varieties of the disease there are, referred to in the medical community as serotypes. A vaccine can only protect against one serotype, so diseases with multiple serotypes would require an equal number of vaccines. The flu is a problem because it has a modular serotype with two interchangeable parts, referred to as H and N (e.g. H1N1), with a lot of possible combinations thereof.
The only reason we have any success with flu vaccines is because Australia's flu season serves as a mostly-accurate forecast of our own. Without that, vaccinating for the flu would be like trying to win at a slot machine. Another example of a disease we can't vaccinate is the common cold, because it has over two hundred serotypes. Complete vaccination against the common cold would require over two hundred vaccines PER PERSON.
Now Cov-SARS-2, commonly known as Covid, is nearly identical to the SARS outbreak we had a few years back, so despite the hysterics of the media, we had a lot of accurate assumptions about it from day one. The big one here is it has only one serotype. A disease with only one serotype only requires one vaccine to easily remove it from the population entirely. For this reason, a flu vaccine is a poor comparison; it's much more akin to an MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella: it's actually three vaccines in one needle) and when was the last time you met someone with one of those?
The virus' existence isn't a scam, but the response to it definitely was. Without Fauci and the WHO telling everyone to disregard it until March, we could have had it shut down more quickly than the original SARS.
The first and largest red flag for me was way back in like March, when one of the talking heads (I think it was Fauci) said "Everyone will have to be exposed, either by catching it, or by getting a vaccine."
ALL OF MY NOPE!
Well, he wasn't wrong with that statement. With any virus, the majority of us DO NEED EXPOSURE to end the damage being done.
I'm only 35 but this was taught to me in either health class or biology:
The more deadly a virus is, the faster it will kill off the victims and burn out. The less deadly it is, the more able it is to spread.
If it is less deadly, more and more people will develop immunity and stop spreading it. This will cause the virus to burn out as well, just slower than a deadly virus.
RNA is unstable thus mutates more. This is why the common cold hasn't been cured. The faster we can kill off the virus by letting us all get immunity, the less opportunity it has to have a worse mutation spread to others. The longer we allow this to spread slowly, the higher chances we have of an actual dangerous version being mutated and spread around.
Not really unfortunately. Time is not a real factor for viruses mutating, its the same factor as it is with all life, Reproduction. More infections = more reproduction = more chances for that deadly mutant version to come into existence. Time is just the board the game is played on, so its easy to mistake it as a factor.
The cold circulates constantly not because of time, but because it mutates into stable variants far more often than there are people it can infect. If we magically infected everyone at the same time with a type of cold, that cold would die out, but in many it would mutate into new variants, some of which would spread around leading to a net gain of total cold variants running around.
Time is in the reproduction. The faster it dies, due to higher mortality, the less time it has to reproduce thus mutate. The slower it dies, due to allowing it to slowly fester and spread, the more time it has to reproduce thus mutate.
Statistically speaking, almost no disease touches every human alive. The statement was a blatantly obvious first step in attempted indoctrination.
"Wear the mask, bigot."
The odd's are much higher that the vaccine will do more harm than the virus it's trying to inoculate.
Yeah, at minimum, I'd wait and see how it goes. These vaccines can have adverse side effects even with a lot of testing. I'm not anti-vax or conspiracist about it, but those are regular, every day facts about vaccines.
If the elderly try it out and it doesn't blow up a year later, maybe I'll give it a go.
Exactly