Its not really a side effects lottery any longer. This is complete nonsense.
Based on your submission history, you are also monomaniacally focused on Covid.
> leaky COVID vaccines did something to reduce transmission of the dominant Delta variant (they don't)
This is false[1]. Please stop spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation.
> letting employers mandate experimental injections is a terrible idea
The vaccines have been used on more than 1B people and have demonstrably saved lives. After they leave someone's system, they have no more capacity to cause harm (because they are no longer in the person's system).
What would have to happen for the vaccines not to be "experimental" anymore? By your definition, aren't all medical interventions experimental? Why do you know so much more about vaccines than actual medical professionals? What is their incentive to harm millions of people against their medical oath?
I actually agree that no government should force people to be vaccinated, but if we have undeniable evidence from millions of people around the world that unvaccinated people are more dangerous to be around, then we shouldn't let them harm other people at their workplace.
> Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus.
A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time.
Wow, truly amazing protection. Better get started firing everyone who had their shots more than 3 months ago too.
> After they leave someone's system, they have no more capacity to cause harm (because they are no longer in the person's system).
Complete nonsense that flies in the face of even the manufacturers' own risk statements, not to mention their insistence on being granted continued blanket immunity against unforeseen damages -- why bother if, as you insist, they are ontologically impossible? Perhaps it's because the human body and immune system are not some computer program about which one can reason a priori as if you're just inserting a few lines of code.
Keep lecturing on "misinformation" though.