26
Comments (10)
sorted by:
2
thunderpussy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh, it will be 97% effective all right.

Just not in the way you expected.......:(

2
theQSergio22 [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't trust it at all

3
thunderpussy 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm no anti-vaccine person, but there is NO way I am taking this.

The approach is too novel, nor can they POSSIBLY foresee long term and potentially catastrophic side effects.

Let me weigh that against a virus that I have a 99% chance of surviving.........

This is a no brainer.

We aren't talking about Smallpox or Ebola, for fucks sake.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
thunderpussy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Particularly when you are using a novel, untested approach using mRNA.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
thunderpussy 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm not against the technology, per se, IF it is proven safe.

There just has not been enough time or study to determine what the risk profile is with this approach.

It's just a fact and common sense.

1
MAGAliths45 1 point ago +2 / -1

Fucking asshole was on NBC saying the vaccine needs to be taken twice now Greed is a sin ya know.

1
theQSergio22 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

he just wants money typical next thing you know he's gonna force us to try whatever joes administration pushes out.

0
MAGAliths45 0 points ago +1 / -1

It should be made highly illegal for someone with that much money and influence to do anything other then give it back in an air locked manner with no influence we cant accept them diluting our already small amount of voter influence on policy.