The messaging thus far has been, "it's perfectly safe and highly effective." So it's quite important to share this info now.

Also, what do you mean by 'untested and unnecessary'?

>Also, what do you mean by 'untested and unnecessary'?

The vaccine was intentionally not trailed on these people because of the risks.

If low risk people get vaccinated then it is not necessary that this tiny minority get vaccinated because of how herd immunity works.

You are wrong.

"The notion that COVID-19-vaccine-induced population immunity will allow a return to pre-COVID-19 “normalcy” might be based on illusory assumptions."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Untested on people with serious allergies and unnecessary, because it's not a virus encounter at that point.

>it's perfectly safe and highly effective

Does anyone actually believe that though? The us government and corporations have a long history of lying to the public.

Anyone? Yes. There's billions of people out there. If the government says it's good to go, some folks will absolutely take that at face value.

Yet they're coming out with this information and all the anti vaccine folks believe it's the truth. So which is it?

We are, collectively, doing a big mistake, by starting with the elder population. The population most likely to suffer from side effects due to their weakened bodies. They're also the easiest to isolate, usually being out of the labour market.

We should have started with the most mobile people from the working-age population. They're the super-spreaders and least likely to suffer from the side effects.

Old people (and children) could possibly avoid the vaccination at all, when the rest develops herd immunity.

I'm not sure the authors of that article would still support it on new information.

The argument they're making is "assume a vaccine is 50% effective at an immunity response, and that before an immunity response kicks in there is still a brief period of time where you are contagious with a small viral load. (50% * infectiousness of immune person) + (50% * infectiousness of an unprotected person) = a lot of infectiousness"

sub out that 50% for 95% (information that has come out more recently than the published date for that article) and the math looks very different. Still not "CORONA EXTINCT BY APRIL"... but much better than what you're implying

Not sure what you mean by "an untested and unnecessary immune response" (are you suggesting that covid is 'fake news' or not serious enough to be vaccinated against, or have I simply misunderstood that part of your post?), but I certainly agree that there's nothing especially unexpected or alarming that a tiny minority of people with a history of serious allergies should have a reaction to this vaccine.

A more charitable interpretation of that comment is that vaccines work by tricking the immune system into reacting to something that is not dangerous. The reaction is necessary to train the immune system when the threat does arrive but the initial reaction doesn’t have any benefit on it’s own.

This is exactly what I meant.