You are judging vaccines by a standard that even natural immunity never meets
I am not. You are. The previous wording could be used by those of a litigious nature to sue. Corporations are allergic to being sued over wording. So they changed it to more accurately reflect what they do.
One of the biggest factors that compromises immunity long term is the fact that viruses, much like living creatures, mutate and evolve. DNA viruses, like measles and polio, don't mutate readily. DNA can essentially do some error detection and correction, and that puts a lid on mutation rates. RNA viruses don't do that. They mutate much more readily. So things like corona and influenza viruses are constantly changing, limiting the effectiveness of a given vaccine over time. Even then, they can offer partial immunity depending on how different the new virus is.
Modern vaccines are designed primarily to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death, not to guarantee zero infections forever.
Bullshit. Most modern vaccines target RNA viruses. Most of the DNA viruses that are dangerous have already been covered. They are a moving target and they tend to have a flock of closely related viruses because of the mutation rates. So coming up with a vaccine that is effective against a range of viruses is harder than one that targets a much smaller set. Which is why they seem to be
designed primarily to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death, not to guarantee zero infections forever.
They aren't designed that way. It likely isn't possible to do that consistently by design. It is a side effect of the way the viruses mutate.
I agree that one of us doesn't understand immunology and how viruses work, though. |
