Prevention ain't some binary absolute. It's a matter of reducing viral load, which in turn reduces both severity of symptoms (often to the point of nonexistence) and the likelihood of retransmission. Would you say that life vests are "ineffective at preventing drowning" just because some people drown despite wearing life vests?

We were told in no uncertain terms that this vaccine was 95% effective at preventing COVID and there were no side effects. Now all of a sudden the authorities are sheepishly admitting, no, it's not anywhere near 95% effective and it just reduces symptoms of COVID to more manageable levels. So I'm not surprised to hear that they lied about there being no side effects.

Just so you know, the FDA wanted 55 years to comply with a FOIA request related to the vaccines, so that seems a bit suspicious to me. Almost like they have some things to hide.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants...

> We were told in no uncertain terms

By whom? I don't recall any actual authorities speaking in such absolutes. (Laypersons and journalists and politicians, on the other hand...)

> So I'm not surprised to hear that they lied about there being no side effects.

"We don't know of any side effects at this time" (even assuming that was ever said, which it wasn't; soreness, allergic reactions, fatigue, etc. were known and declared as side effects since pretty much day 1) is not a lie, even if it's discovered later that there might be some (additional) side effects.

> Just so you know, the FDA wanted 55 years to comply with a FOIA request related to the vaccines, so that seems a bit suspicious to me. Almost like they have some things to hide.

Or almost like going through 329,000 pages of documentation to redact confidential information (including PII) takes awhile, and that the FDA has other FOIA requests to handle on top of that.