No, in mid 2021 the uncensored science detailed >90% immunity after the 2 shots. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34002089/
The 10% was more in relation to people who are immunocompromised. They absolutely said these vaccines would prevent you from getting infection. They absolutely said the vaccines would provide herd immunity and get us out of lockdowns.
The censored science, including the discoverer/inventor of the mrna vaccine, said no such thing is possible. Instead of a healthy discourse on this, he got banned from everything until joe rogan brought him on.
>In immunogenicity analyses completed during phase I/II vaccine trials, 100% of participants developed both binding and neutralizing antibodies following vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and 90% of participants developed binding and neutralizing antibodies following vaccination with the Janssen vaccine
The problem hit when there was small towns with high vaccination rates had more people sick than unvaccinated people. Literally proving the vaccines don't work. So then and only then did they start saying that the shots dont prevent you from catching covid.
Has anyone counted the moral/ethical violations above? They published lies and censored the truth. They blasted informed consent out of the solar system.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm <- read the second heading "What is added by this report?
During December 2020–July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site."
Study provided by the same people who said the vaccines immunize and prevent infection. I literally brought this up in the post you responded to.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/social-media/mm7013e3...
This is misinformation we now know this is a lie. Why do you think the CDC is publishing misinformation? Why do the 'fact checkers' not fact check these lies?
>The shots we received dont really seem to do anything against covid.
Doesnt prevent infection. Doesn't prevent symptoms. Doesn't prevent spreading.
The only current backpedaled 'benefit' from the vaccine is 'it reduces symptoms' which puts it on par with tylenol.
>Anyway. I'd say we are still a few years away from having a covid "vaccine".
The mrna tech failed for decades because it failed.
That said, should we not work toward a viral vaccine that works? Perhaps we could eliminate all these viral ailments. That would be a huge success for humanity.
If going through a disease caused by a certain virus can result in lifelong immunity, so can a vaccine designed against that virus. If going through another disease caused by a different virus leaves the host at risk of eventual (usually milder or even asymptomatic) reinfection, that's the most any vaccine can achieve.
While the vaccine showed sterilizing (prevents infection) immunity for its target strain, the subsequent strains are generally more effective at causing infection but the vaccine still had a lot of efficacy at preventing severe disease and reducing duration of symptoms.
This is more effective than influenza vaccine which is also primarily aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality.