Are COVID-19 Vaccines Safe and Effective?
Five years after Donald Trump declared a national COVID-19 emergency, here's what the research says.

"We are emerging from one of the darkest years in our nation's history into a summer of hope and joy, hopefully," declared President Joe Biden at a press conference on July 6, 2021. "We're closer than ever to declaring our independence from this deadly virus." The cause for his optimism was the fact that more than 182 million Americans had received at least one shot of the new COVID-19 vaccines, including nearly 90 percent of seniors and 70 percent of adults over the age of 27.
That 70 percent figure was significant because early in the pandemic many epidemiologists had suggested that was immunological threshold at which a population might achieve herd immunity. Herd immunity occurs when a sufficiently large portion of a population is immune to a disease either via vaccination or infection, making it difficult for the disease to continue to spread.
Biden did cautiously note the emergence of the new more highly infectious Delta variant of the coronavirus but asserted that "the good news is that our vaccinations are highly effective." He added, "If you're vaccinated, you're protected."
Biden was speaking nearly a year and a half after his predecessor, Donald Trump, had declared a national state of emergency over the novel coronavirus outbreak on March 13, 2020. Three days later, Trump's White House issued the President's Coronavirus Guidelines for America that, among other things, advised governors in states with evidence of community transmission to close schools, bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms, and other indoor and outdoor venues. On May 15, 2020, Trump launched Operation Warp Speed to rapidly produce COVID-19 vaccines. Relying on the amazing success of Operation Warp Speed, Biden was calling for the end of pandemic lockdowns and hailing the advent of a "summer of freedom."
In earlier articles on the fifth anniversary of Trump's national emergency, we have considered whether face masks worked, the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as COVID-19 treatments, and how many Americans died of the infection. Sticking to recent peer-reviewed science and setting aside the political question of what the government should do with the information, let's turn now to the question: What have researchers learned about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines?
Initial phase III trial results from November 2020 suggested that, after two doses, new mRNA vaccines developed by Moderna and Pfizer were about 95 percent effective in protecting against infection from COVID-19. A March 2021 real-world study involving health care, first responders, and essential workers bolstered those findings.
Herd Immunity
Just as the national inoculation campaign began in December 2020, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Dr. Anthony Fauci, was predicting that the U.S. could achieve herd immunity by "the end of the second quarter of 2021."
Achieving herd immunity depends upon vaccines and natural infection creating durable long-term protection against reinfection (e.g., measles, smallpox, and polio). The clinical trials showed that the initial protection afforded by the new COVID-19 vaccines was outstanding but being short-term the trials did not have the power to determine how long that protection against infection might last.
Early on, some other researchers questioned the possibility of achieving COVID-19 herd immunity via vaccination and/or natural infection. In a September 2020 preprint(subsequently published in Nature in January 2021), a team of Australian immunologists sought to determine how COVID-19 immunity might evolve. Noting that protective antibodies waned in the first 2–3 months following infection by four known common cold coronaviruses, they suspected that that would also be the case for the novel COVID-19 coronavirus. "Our study suggests SARS-CoV-2 immunity after infection is likely to be transiently protective at a population level," they concluded.
An April 2021 article in PLoS Pathogens by an immunologist at the NIAID similarly concluded from experience with the serial reinfection by four common cold coronaviruses that "COVID-19 herd immunity is a pipe dream." (Recent research speculates that the Russian Flu pandemic of the late 19th century might actually have been caused by an outbreak of one the now endemic common cold coronaviruses.)
By March 2022, Fauci and his colleagues acknowledged "the concept of classical herd immunity may not apply to COVID-19" in The Journal of Infectious Diseases. "Living with COVID-19 is best considered not as reaching a numerical threshold of immunity, but as optimizing population protection without prohibitive restrictions on our daily lives," they concluded. Population protection, among other things, now involves inoculations updated much like seasonal flu vaccines to boost waning antibodies and to counter emerging variants of the COVID-19 coronavirus. Ultimately, Biden's 2021 "summer of freedom" turns out to have been a fond but illusory hope of a permanent respite from COVID-19. Given this reality, current COVID-19 vaccines are now primarily designed to prevent severe disease and death rather than infection.
Lives Saved
COVID-19 vaccines and boosters have proved to be highly effective in preventing severe cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Recent research in The Lancet calculates that COVID-19 vaccinations between December 2020 and March 2023 saved approximately 1.6 million lives in Europe. A 2024 Brookings Institution report suggests "the delivery of vaccines to a substantial majority of the American population by mid-2021 saved close to 800,000 American lives relative to what would have occurred had vaccines not been developed." In 2023, a team of researchers associated with Harvard University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention distressingly estimated that "at least 232,000 deaths" in the U.S. "could have been prevented among unvaccinated adults during the 15 months [May 30, 2021 to September 3, 2022] had they been vaccinated with at least a primary series."
Safety and Side Effects
Let's focus on the mRNA vaccines developed by Moderna and Pfizer since they account for the vast majority of COVID-19 inoculations in the United States. In reporting the results from their Phase III clinical trials in November 2020, both Pfizer and Moderna chronicled relatively few transient side effects, which were mostly mild and moderate. These included fatigue, headache, and pain at the injection site.
As reassuring as those results were, the rollout of vaccines to tens of millions of people would likely uncover other side effects. In the spring of 2021, women began reporting prolongation of their menstrual cycles after receiving mRNA vaccinations. Subsequent studies confirmed this side effect but concluded that it was temporary and had no identifiable effect on fertility.
As the number of vaccinations increased, reports emerged in the summer of 2021 that after getting their second mRNA inoculation, several young males had experienced a type of inflammation of the heart called myocarditis. Understandably, parents found these reports alarming. Fortunately, subsequent research has been more reassuring.
A September 2024 review in the journal NPJ Vaccines reports that the risk of myocarditis is about six times greater for those who are infected with COVID-19 than for those who are vaccinated. A February 2025 article in the European Heart Journal compared patients who experienced post-vaccine myocarditis to those who experienced post-COVID-19 and conventional myocarditis. The researchers found that post-vaccine myocarditis patients were less likely to be hospitalized and experienced fewer cardiovascular events.
In January 2023, Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson asserted that a number of young athletes were dropping dead shortly after getting COVID-19 injections. Carlson claimed, "Since the vax campaign began, there have been more than 1,500 total cardiac arrests in those [European sports] leagues and two-thirds of those were fatal," reported the Associated Press.
This claim was widely debunked shortly thereafter. More recently, a November 2023 study in Sports Health of 1,229 vaccinated U.S. Olympic athletes found that none had died of sudden cardiac arrest or experienced myocarditis. A February 2025 cardiology research letter in JAMA Network compares sudden cardiac arrest and death rates among young competitive athletes before and during the pandemic. "This cohort study found no increase in SCA/SCD [sudden cardiac arrest/sudden cardiac death] in young competitive athletes in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that reports asserting otherwise were overestimating the cardiovascular risk of COVID-19 infection, vaccination, and myocarditis," conclude the authors.
What does recent research tell us about COVID-19 vaccine safety more generally?
The most comprehensive analysis of the safety of COVID-19 vaccines is the cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals published in April 2024 in Vaccine. The researchers confirmed that the incidences of previously identified rare safety signals following COVID-19 vaccination were quite low. "What we take away, is that the Covid-19 vaccination campaigns have been very effective in preventing severe disease," explained study co-author epidemiologist Anders Hviid to SciCheck. "The few serious side effects that we have observed in this and other studies have been rare."
A September 2024 analysis in Vaccine of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance system bolstered this conclusion and found that "the comprehensive federal vaccine monitoring efforts have provided robust data supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. After the administration and monitoring of more than 676 million doses in U.S. residents, serious AEs [adverse events] were rarely observed following vaccination."
Upshot: The promise of vaccinated COVID-19 herd immunity has proved illusory. The coronavirus is now an endemic respiratory illness, much like seasonal influenza. The good news is that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines considerably outweigh their risks.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
100%!!!
As long as you deny menstrual cycle issues, t cell exhaustion, cardio issues, and ignore higher covid infections rates for the vaccinated.. . Yes.
Citing Brookings and lancet lol.
Citing JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer THE EXPERT ABOUT EVERYTHING, WHO IS NEVER WRONG, anti-LOL, ALL HAIL JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer, Who Knows All Things, and don't NEEEEED no fucking data!!!
Says the LYING, uneducated cuntspiracy-theory-believing, death-and-disease-lusting PervFect Nut Job!
Killing people is good ass long ass anti-vaxxers have their way in promoting anti-vaxism ass THE most fashionable of ALL Marks of Tribal Virtue!!!
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages
Just LOOK at the interactive graph right at the top of this link!!!! COVID deaths among the unvaccinated VASTLY outnumbered, and still outnumber, the deaths among the vaccinated!!! WHY do You Perfectly Lust SOOOO Much for death and suffering, LYING servant and serpent of communicable diseases?!?!
PS, "food" is dangerous! People get sick and even die from food poisoning!!! Be SAFE!!! STOP eating!!!!
So true.
I once knew a vegan who laughed and laughed when someone who ate a steak died from e. coli - served them right for eating an animal. That vegan ate a melon and died from listeria - serves them right for eating a plant. You just shouldn't eat.
Sqrlsy gets his e. coli right from the original source.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find the link where he says he is into coprophagia, but I did find his one on cannibalism to show he's not conservative when it comes to eating stuff:
SQRLSY One 29 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
GMO and-or cultured HUMAN meat, with the PRECISELY needed (already-built-in-by genetics) balance of amino acids! Even with NO killing of anything truly living or “human”, how many customers would go for it?
(I read of it in sci-fi in high school.)
On a related note, WHERE, evolution-wise, does it turn into cannibalism? If I eat a chimp? A Neanderthal? A Trumpanzee gone apeshit?
SQRLSY should be boiled in sulfuric acid.
The Lancet is not up to Jesse's standards. Yeah, the guy that posts unverified Twiitter links LOL's the Lancet.
The Lancet has a Journal Impact Factor (JIF) of 98.4, ranking first among 325 general and internal medicine journals globally, according to the 2023 Journal Citation Reports.
Remember when Facebook under pressure from the Biden Administration engaged censors who actually censored the British Medical Journal for misinformation and called it a "blog"?
Good times.
Anyway, given the astonishing number of Covid studies from 2020-2023 (some published in the Lancet) that were later withdrawn, and Bailey's track record; I'd sooner take my health advice from Sarc and Sqrlsy, than the Reason version of Jim Cramer.
Yes, every study should be reviewed critically. All medical journals are filledmwith junk bad research. Being published in the Lancet does not guarantee its good, nor bad. My point (and it's personal with my grudge against Jesse, as I explained below) is that you can't dismiss a study because it's in the Lancet.
Wasn’t The Lancet the place that published the bullshit study that kicked off the modern day anti-vaxxer movement?
Why yes, yes they were: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud
Everything they publish in regards to vaccines is tainted thanks to that, so dismissing them out of hand is completely logical. Being a petty bitch isn’t a good look on you QB.
Everything they publish in regards to vaccines is tainted thanks to that, so dismissing them out of hand is completely logical.
I disagree. In peer reviewed journals every article is essentially submitted by different authors and edited by different reviewers. All journals will have fraudulent or faulty articles. If your standard is to disregard the Lancet for publishing a later retracted article, that is a standard that will discard all published medical science.
Being a petty bitch isn’t a good look on you QB.
Ouch. I mean OUCH.
I'll try to be better and let bygones be bygones. No promises, though.
Jesse has been an absolute bitch to me for years, particularly rejecting my sources. So yes, It's petty and it's personal.
Here's a random grab of things he has said to me just in the past few weeks, but this has been going on for years. Maybe you can tell him about being a petty bitch too.
The sea lion can't think through how a degree that includes complex system analysis is much closer to economics than a degree in communication.
Thanks for confirming sea lion.
All sea lions are fundamentally assholes.
They demand you do their work for them due to their lack of intellectual curiosity, then simply ignore or deny the evidence when you do the work for them.But the sea lion only knows dem narratives.
There is a 0% chance he watched anything but what CNN or MSNBC edited.
What a fucking sea lioning piece of shit.
How retarded do you look right now qb?
Oh no. Qb demands attention while claiming to not be an attention whore sea lion. Lol.
And no. You don't care to find the original source. If you did you would know these databases are public. You don't even know that dumbass. You want to dismiss it because you have feelings and narratives to uphold.
You're a sea lion. Be less like mike. You've even developed your own self delusions of discussions.
“Ouch. I mean OUCH.”
I made myself a petty bitch by calling you that. Sincere apologies.
“Jesse has been an absolute bitch to me”
Jesse has a tendency to take shit too far, and you’re right I don’t call it out. I’ll have to do some introspection as to why.
“I disagree. In peer reviewed journals every article is essentially submitted by different authors and edited by different reviewers. All journals will have fraudulent or faulty articles. If your standard is to disregard the Lancet for publishing a later retracted article, that is a standard that will discard all published medical science.”
My problem with the Lancet is that it took them 12 years to retract something that was obvious bullshit the year it was published. Which was 6 years after the clear conflict of interest of the author was exposed. But by then, the damage was done, Jenny McCarthy had convinced a bunch of wine moms they would give their kids autism by protecting them from MMR and now what should have always been a fringe movement of religious nutters and kooks has RFK Jr in a position of power and gave assholes like Bailey cover to lump in people that were against the Covid vaccine.
Sincere apologies
No need for apologies. I try to stay respectful regardless of how I've been treated and I failed at that, so I'm glad you called me out.
I wasn't aware of the effort to retract that article. I know retraction (unless requested and agreed upon by all authors) is difficult and slow. My sympathies are with you though. You raise a good point and journals should have better mechanisms in place to retract articles. Scientific publishing assumes honest submissions but clearly that can be problematic and will probably only get worse.
Heather Nicole Cauvel quit her nursing job to avoid the vaccine
I hope she sues.
No vaccine that is safe and effective requires the manufacturer to be shielded from liability.
Period.
This is true.
The COVID vaccine produced by Big Pharma proved to be disruptive to one's mRna resulting in the disruption of your heart's rhythm.
As a result, some athletes dropping dead while playing their games.
Plus, if the COVID vaccine was safe and effective, you wouldn't need boosters.
Plus, if EATING FOOD was safe and effective, you wouldn't need boosters of MORE food ALL of the time! 'Cause DOCTOR Jay said so!!!!
PS, "food" is dangerous! People get sick and even die from food poisoning!!! Be SAFE!!! STOP eating!!!!
The Covid 1984 vaccine is a total fraud.
It was meant to kill people.
Fauci is a psychopath and a monster.
Almost forgot, komrade Bernie Sanders issues statement that everyone wear a mask again. This liar, fraud and hypocrite has been exposed.
So your definition of "safe and effective" requires that it cause no problems for anyone?
My definition of "safe and effective" is a medicine or vaccine does not harm the patient.
Why is this so hard to understand?
How about "much safer and far more effective than not being vaccinated"?
It isn’t for most people.
Much. Death rate from the virus for those under 20 was less than one in a million. The vacc8nes very likely killed many more than that.
About ten times more than that.
It's time for that fraud doctor Fauci to face trial in a world courtroom for experimenting on young children animals and crimes against humanity much the same as Josef Mengele.
In truth Fauci is the Josef Mengele of the 21st century. When found guilty, he should be taken out and hung by a gallows, in public.
Got evidence?
This is not true at all. Their are other reasons you can't sue a vaccine maker. It is known, like any other medicine or drug, that vaccines can cause rare side effects. These side effects are not caused by negligence of the vaccine makers. The actual safety of the vaccine is the responsibility of the FDA. Vaccine makers can't make affordable vaccines if they are at risk of being sued for side effects. Thus there is a fund to compensate people from vaccine side effects without going through the court system.
This system in no way implies a that vaccines are unsafe.
And they are forced to advertise said side effects. Did the covid vaccines dumdum? They still deny side effects exist.
No one denies side effects exist. The known side effects for every medicine is published.
You're so full of shit Molly. They still deny the myocarditis despite a multitude of studies. Show us the warning label for this with the vaccines at the time they were distributed.
God you leftists just lie so freely.
So show us a graph of myocarditis cases per 100,000 population from the Spanish Flu era to the present.
Does it slope up, or do you owe your readers a profuse apology ?
Yet you and your fellow travelers forced these ‘vaccines’ on people who didn’t want them, and for no valid medical reason in most cases.
Hey! He said "period." That means you're not allowed to rebut him. He's had the final word. Period.
Well, now, wait a minute! Someone is paying the expenses of the injured parties already. What's wrong if that cost falls on the maker of the vaccine, and hence is distributed over all who buy it? Do you fear moral hazard, wherein people change their behavior to take on too much risk? What, like users are going to go nuts with vaccines?
Isn't it better that users of vaccines are the ones to pay, rather than taxpayers? Then the users choose their risk.
Are you trying to capture the positive externality of vaccination by subsidizing their insurance? But there is no positive externality unless the vaccine turns out to be a sterilizing one, preventing transmission, which this one turned out not to be.
At this point I just want to encourage the believers to get another booster.
Totally safe. Enjoy.
I saw a couple at Costco yesterday. Must have been about early 30’s. They wore matching cloth masks.
What does this have to do with vaccines?
Also, when I see someone wearing a mask, I remind myself that I don't know that person's circumstances. Perhaps they are immunocompromised, or are living with someone immunocompromised or elderly. I try not to make assumptions about other people. I don't always succeed, but I try.
"the greater good"
A lot. Especially the gullibility of the left. And what kind of circumstances would dictate that both individuals require masks?
There's no cure for stupid.
Sticking to recent peer-reviewed science and setting aside the political question...
"Sticking to recent peer-reviewed science" does NOT set aside politics. The medical/pharmaceutical/academic complex is thoroughly compromised by politics and graft.
I think just about every university research paper is sponsored by pharma. When they list conflicts of interest as none, they are simply lying. The list of doners is right there on the university website.
It is really not. Researchers base their entire careers on their reputation. They are not going to fudge numbers for politics. There might be some crazy one who do, but it is rare. And the grants keep a close eye on the money and conflict of interests.
Science is probably the most honest profession out there.
Except, you know, for the replicability problem. P-hacking. Flat out making up results. And that's just the people who do it to farm reputation. Then there's whole fields that publish garbage and its considered normal work. Then there's whole fields that are politically motivated to post specific results in order to keep the grant money flowing.
Is 'scientists depend on their reputation' something you learned while getting your doctorate in physics?
Which explains the ever growing number of retractions in science.
Are you this fucking stupid? This fucking pathalogical with lies? Both?
Tony Godiva is not known for it’s high intelligence or wisdom scores.
As I think the peer in peer-reviewed has become a singular, politically-motivated entity, I no longer believe an awful lot of scientific papers. I'm a scientist, among a growing number, who no longer trusts or believes the science; that could be the worst long term effect of covid.
I have to agree. Peer review in the major journals is notorious for keeping unpopular conclusions out of publication. Given the well documented explicit political pressure for this subject, including pressure against the British Medical Journal, the effects of political pressure on publication should be assumed.
In fact, I would not trust peer review to weed out popular results on ANY politically charged subject.
To give an extreme example, the study pushed into school textbooks about how transwomen have brains that resemble women had only 72 participants, 1/3 of which were trans, and the results had huge overlap to the point that it is USELESS for diagnosis, as over a third of transwomen were considered more male than average. Yet, it's being put in high school textbooks as unquestionable truth, and in almost any other forum, this message would be deleted for questioning it.
"The good news is that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines considerably outweigh their risks." The people injured would disagree. https://react19.org/
Nope. Not for most. Very low death rates for those under 60.
The foxes assure us that the henhouse is secure.
Anyone remember this?
https://www.theblaze.com/news/inconvenient-by-design-chicago-to-impose-proof-of-covid-19-vaccination-requirement-to-enter-some-indoor-facilities
This was one if the foundation blocks for the 2024 election results.
In the summer of 2021 I had to show my vaccine card to play softball outdoors, or wear a mask.
In May of 2022 I had to show a vaccination card AND wear a mask if I wanted to see a concert.
Achieving herd immunity depends upon vaccines and natural infection creating durable long-term protection against reinfection (e.g., measles, smallpox, and polio).
As usual this is a fundamentally categorically false and dishonest definition. Herd immunity is a concept of an abstract conceptual or mathematical model. Neither vaccines nor natural infection outside initiating a pandemic or breakout are required, it can and is achieved by any number of means. It's like saying achieving quorum in the Senate depends on cars or bicycles. If a disease spreads by prolific buttsex within the herd and the herd, in response to the disease, foregoes buttsex long enough to survive, even without infection and exposure based immunity, herd immunity is achieved.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, was predicting that the U.S. could achieve herd immunity by "the end of the second quarter of 2021."
...
By March 2022, Fauci and his colleagues acknowledged "the concept of classical herd immunity may not apply to COVID-19"
Same shit, different The Science! retard regurgitating it. The concept of herd immunity that you made up and deemed as part of your retarded post-modern religion is not, never was, and never will be the 'classical definition'. You think this would've been learned, classically, in the 80s when everybody didn't die despite the same retardation about HIV but, here we are in the 10s/20s suffering because you're too stupid and the public that it "strong" enough to shoot an insurance CEO in the back is too morally degraded to lamppost you.
The researchers confirmed that the incidences of previously identified rare safety signals following COVID-19 vaccination were quite low. "What we take away, is that the Covid-19 vaccination campaigns have been very effective in preventing severe disease,"
This is a horseshit statement. It's a parlor trick that talks about vaccines broadly, and dangers as rare (which depending on your definition of rare, isn't rare at all) especially when the risks of COVID are effectively zero for a large chunk of the population.
Here's Jay Bhattacharya on the risks vs effectiveness of the vaccines. Cut at the relevant time.
Bottom line, COVID had ~.2% fatality rate, and almost that entire cohort was in aged people with comorbidities. So vaccinating tens of millions of young people, when the risk of myocarditis was higher than your risk of death from the disease is utter madness.
Also, the pointed, constant and incandescent highlighting of "Trump's emergency" "Trump's declaration" "Trump's pandemic" is increasingly looking like a bet-hedge to me.
"Based on a subset of peer-reviewed studies that I cherry picked, combined with some quotes from Anthony Fauci taken after 2022, but before late 2023, and within a broad definition of 'vaccine', 'immunity' 'therapy' etc., if it becomes increasingly clear that mandating vaccines for several billion people around the world while Reason magazine nodded quietly and mocked people for kulturwarhurrdurr... if all that turns out to be what the commenters were saying, then I can blame Trump."
the risks of COVID are effectively zero for a large chunk of the population.
They were never effectively zero for a large chunk of the population. Close to 75% of the American population is overweight or obese. Much higher in that part of the population that is under 80. That single factor is the second highest co-morbidity risk of covid behind the flood of complications that comes with advanced age and multiple chronic conditions (ie the over-80's). The reason overweight/obese is such a co-morbidity is because of inflammation, reduced immunity, poor breathing, increased blood clotting, and the other conditions that result in the diseases associated with obesity.
I fault CDC/etc for not talking about that risk - with respect to covid risks and vaccines. The age group with the highest overweight/obesity rates are 40-60 year olds. Not the elderly or the young.
Precisely the group whose hospitalization/mortality rose the most during 2021 - among the unvaxxed. Precisely because assholes like you were selling them that 'the risks of covid are effectively zero for a large chunk of the population'. Esp in areas where 'normal' is in fact very overweight/obese. And where the shit your ilk was/is peddling about vaccines gets eaten.
There is no amount of data or science or clear video that will change the mind of a MAGA. They are impervious to thought. They base their entire world view on Republican sound bites and fake conspiracies.
So abandoning "My Body, My Choice" was a good idea?
Nothing repels MAGAs more than Republicans speaking in complete sentences.
Polio vaccines arrived on the scene shortly after Columbia President Dwight Eisenhower moved to the White House
I'd spend more time discussing this, but I tested positive for polio today so I'm not feeling up to it. Luckily the vaccine shaves off the worst of the effects.
How long have you been using Salk vaccine as shaving cream?
You idiots keep comparing mRNA to polio without knowing anything about the actual science. You practice lysenkoism.
You're a fucking propagandized fool.
Your words betray you- actual scientists don't compare, or elide , molecules , viruses and diseases .
Lysenko is dead, but RFK is alive and well.
Is that why Jamal refused to go on Rogan?
Kamala
They know what they feel and nothing can make them think.
You're the incarnation of emotive reasoning, drunky, and I'll bet a c-note that this late into the evening you have no idea what's even being talked about.
Then why are you here?
How much does it suck that who you call MAGA were right and your idols like Fauci and thr CDC were wrong?
These articles just reinforce the overwhelming amount of evidence that Ron has zero scientific curiosity and relies on shorthand conclusions from trusted top men. Basically, it's all bias confirming bs and appeal to authority.
These comments reinforce the overwhelming amount of evidence that MAGAs have zero scientific curiosity and dismiss anything that doesn’t confirm their biases.
Hey Sarckles. Do you even know what everyone is talking about?
Sarc still defends masking and covid vaccines. He only knows what MSNBC tells him.
The gathered data on which these conclusions are based are as reliable as modeled data, which is to say not at all. This area of study has been politicized thanks to a healthy mix of opportunism and careerism.
This article could tell me that the data proves that vaccines are safe and effective or it could tell me the data proves that individuals should weigh their own risks due to the limited efficacy and significant injury risk. It wouldn't matter which because I wouldn't believe either has been proved. No one has credibility left on which to stand.
Piss off.
Look at the misuse of terminology in the article and comments. Vaccines do not prevent transmission or infection; they are supposed to prevent disease. I've not seen that with any respiratory corona vaccines.
Pfizer was charging the govt $19.50/dose. Did Pfizer save their own faltering ass with the vaccine or was it another big pharma govt bailout disguised as such?
Right. Vaccines have no effect UNLESS you become infected.
Vaccines can prevent transmission and/or infection (though not colonization; infection is infection only if it causes disease). The mRNA preps do not, or at least not too effectively.
First let me say this is another in a fine set of articles reviewing the COVID pandemic. The Trump administration made many mistakes in the pandemic but the push for the vaccine was on bright spot where they should get credit. The technology for the rapid development of the vaccine was in place but it was the Trump administration that assured the pharmaceutical companies that there would be a market when the vaccines were ready. The Biden administration did an excellent job getting the vaccines out to the public. Where they went wrong is pushing too hard. They should have been more accommodating to hold outs. I think social pressures would have been more effective in convincing people to get vaccinated than a government push. While heard immunity was never achieved the reduction in cases when large numbers were vaccinated had significant impacts in ending the pandemic.
You know. I can get behind this mentality. It was a great push. While it was far from perfect, the intent was noble and the result, while imperfect, was impressive.
However, the threats of state force effectively violated the basic bodily autonomy that is so prized in other situations. The mandate. The explicit falsehoods. The transparently false claims about efficacy.
Instead of saying "it's not perfect but it's the best we have", there was active censorship of any negatives. There was gaslighting pretending that it was perfect. And there was an attempt to make anyone who disagreed or questioned unemployable whether or not the employer or employee agreed. And that permanently soured everyone's opinion.
These are a great set of articles. I would really like to see if Ron Bailey could put together an article on the impacts of people who contracted COVID and had mid-level illnesses. Much of the discussion of COVID was binary with one side pushing the number of deaths while the other side countered with number who had mild infections. I wonder about the effect of those with mid-level infection that result in loss of work for one or two weeks to those that ended up hospitalized but recovered. One relative of mine, a small businessman, was over worked because he always had staff out with the infection. Another relative had to be taken into the hospital in an ambulance. While they recovered quickly there were significant medical expenses. I think there were significant impacts in the middle that is never considered.
Predictably, the people who jes' knows that the Covid vaccine is harmful - gives you 5G radiation burns, makes your pet frogs hermaphrodites, and attracts missionaries from the Priory of Sion - will conclude that any study which shows otherwise is necessarily wrong and was funded by the Soros Foundation with assistance from the Bavarian Illuminati and the Rothschilds, under the aegis of The Hood, who was really Dr Fauci in disguise.
Look at shrike and his ignorance lol. Even having to link actual science showing him to be wrong to 5G conspiracy theories. Because shrike can't make an actual informed argument. Shrike is a child raping moron.
Weird how you missed the link to a doctor in this thread to push your bullshit narratives while calling others ignorant lol.
The problem arises not from what you are called, but what you are, and do>
Ignoramus et ignoramibus a terminal vaxxer bore.
In 2023, a team of researchers associated with Harvard University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention distressingly estimated that "at least 232,000 deaths" in the U.S. "could have been prevented among unvaccinated adults during the 15 months [May 30, 2021 to September 3, 2022] had they been vaccinated with at least a primary series."
Just looking briefly at the study, it looks valid. Truthfully, those dead are mostly of the Airplane!/Darwin variety (They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into. I say - Let em die).
But those dead here in the US are very different than the unvax in other countries who died simply because the vaccine was not available there. It was entirely political deaths here. From that study, the estimate is that 144,000 of those 232,000 died from May 30 to Dec 4 2021 (basically the Delta wave - which is also the one that overwhelmed hospitals). They were, on average, younger than those who died before the vax (over 70) - or those who died even with the vax (nearly 80). 40% of them were 30-65 - exactly the age group who are often obese in many parts of the US but not yet old and decrepit. Healthy enough to clog up hospital beds and ICU resources for many weeks before they croak. It would be useful to see a study on how many unvax were hospitalized for covid - but that's not really my point here.
My point here - is that these deaths were political. It is a guarantee that any future pandemic here in the US will also become deathly and stupidly political. If public health is gonna be done here in the US, it will only happen via the states or localities. NOT via the CDC or DC. Which is why I think CDC needs to be completely restructured. Put into an interstate compact form. Let any fed function be managed BY the states public health people. Only the states would have the mandate authority - most likely only the states would speak to their own citizens. If the feds provide some funding so be it - but they sure as hell wouldn't have funded the trillions for pigs in the trough.
That restructuring of CDC needs to happen BEFORE the next pandemic. If some states fuck up their public health function so be it. At least at that level they are more accountable.
Well j, maybe starting out with lies about wet markets and masking earned “The Science” a fair amount of skepticism all the way through the vax phase and beyond.
Asshole.
That doesn't change anything. Those people who died are still deserving of Darwin Awards. The info about lab release and/or masks is nothing more than you admitting that your ilk politicized everything and made decisions based on that politicization. Which is what I said.
And it persists as your ilk wants the failures of CDC (which I also implied since there is no reason for a restructuring without a preceding failure) to be rewarded with - even more authority for CDC but with a full fledged 'vaccines cause autism' nominee to head up CDC.
One big problem - they were never going to hit herd immunity with the ModRNA vaccines. Why? Because the vaccines forced the virus to mutate faster than it could be administered, esp when they started vaccinating kids.
The problem was that the vaccines were exceedingly narrow - the ModRNA in the vaccines produced exactly two spike proteins. There are equations for calculating herd immunity from infertility and mortality. And initially, assuming the vaccines were sterilizing (no repeat infections or transmissions - which was far from true), the Wuhan (original) variant required roughly 60% vaccination rate for herd immunity. But Delta, which became prominent in this country maybe 4 months after the vaccines were first being administered, was more infectious, and thus required roughly 80% coverage for herd immunity, and Omicron required north of maybe 95% coverage. Not going to happen, excluding natural immunity.
The weakness of these vaccines was how narrow they were. To evade the vaccines, the virus only had to mutate those two spike proteins. Cross reactivity between the antibodies generated in response to the ModRNA vaccinations was over 90% with the Wuhan variant (hence, why they thought that it was effective), but roughly 50% for Delta, and less than 10% for Omicron.
Facing the rapidly declining efficacy of the ModRNA vaccines, as they forced the virus to mutate to evade these vaccines, the smart thing (besides limiting them to those who would benefit from them (those maybe 65 or older or those with serious comorbidities)) would have been to switch the target spike proteins as quickly as they could. Instead, they belatedly put out a bivalent vaccine, that produced both Wuhan and Omicron variant spike proteins long after Wuhan (as well as Alpha through Delta) were long obsolete, interfering with creating immune memory for Omicron in those who had previously been vaxed with Wuhan variant spike protein generating ModRNA. IT was only after most of the population had immunity to the virus itself, that they switched to a pure Omicron variant vaccine.
There are equations for calculating herd immunity from INFECTIVITY and mortality.
Idk whether the vaccines force the virus to mutate faster but it was clear very very early on that the virus was mutating far too fast for herd immunity to ever apply. There were two versions of the virus before it ever left Wuhan. One of those never left Asia, the other was part of the very early West Coast infections. The version that hit NY early originated in a European mutation. All the versions up to and including Omicron mutated outside any 'vaccine pressure'.
This was always going to be a short lived immunity. So a vaccine with boosters. Not something permanent. If CDC oversold that, it is because CDC is corrupt and an incompetent public health agency. Both of which proved true early on.
Bailey gives a good overview of a vaccine that harms very few people.
But there is still a question as to who is at-risk. The demographics of that population may or may not answer the question, but even that information would be meaningful to those people who continue to receive covid vaccines.
The problem could be that the side effects happen at such a low level that it really impossible to get good demographic data. There might be enough data in 10 years but for now the health care community is still guessing. Obliviously effects on the menstrual cycle affects only women, but that a pretty large group to have to start with to try and narrow a critical factor.
Why are we calling it a vaccine? Isn't it a more accurate description to call it an experimental biologic treatment? When you got jabbed, you had to sign a release that was quite specific and emphatic in stating it was an experimental treatment done under an emergency authorization.
Did it work? Hard to say w/o hard biologic evidence. What happened immunologically at the cellular level when you got jabbed? Can't say. We have stats big data, but that is inferential.
I think the sign off you mentioned ended a long time ago. Today the Covid vaccine is pretty much like the flu vaccine, and I get them at the same time. I think the basic theories of how vaccines work is pretty well established.
But the mRNA shots work very differently from vaccines.
But the mRNA shots work very differently from other vaccines.
FTFY
All called vaccines with no controversy
Flu: Moderna's mRNA influenza vaccine
Rabies: Bavarian Nordic Pharma's GSK Rabies Adjuvant
Zika virus: Moderna's mRNA Zika vaccine
Cytomegalovirus (CMV): Moderna's mRNA CMV vaccine
Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2): Moderna's mRNA HSV-2 vaccine
HIV: Moderna's mRNA HIV vaccine
The mode of operation may be different, but they are still called vaccines.
Or perhaps you should only call them vaccines if they come from cowpox.
All called vaccines
If I take a magic marker and write "Maserati" on my Honda, will it go twice at fast? The definition of "vaccine" was changed to allow the mRNA shots to be called that for marketing purposes. They are different from anything called a vaccine prior to that.
with no controversy
Bullshit. Many spoke out about that subterfuge.
The mode of operation may be different, but they are still called vaccines.
The mode of operation is what defines them as vaccines. Except for the mRNA shots, which are not vaccines, except in the marketing fiction of the pharmaceutical corporations. Their lies don't change what a vaccine actually is.
No, the mRNA work just like all other vaccines. The vaccine exposes the body to an antigen that elicits an immune response. Once the body's immune system is primed it can more rapidly respond when exposed to the actual infectious agent. What you are quibbling about is the mechanism to expose the body to the antigenic agent.
Bullshit. The mRNA shots alter your own body cells to CREATE an antigen. The shots do not contain any antigen, only genetic instructions for creating one. That is fundamentally different from a vaccine. There is an actual vaccine for COVID-19, made by Novavax, that works as you describe.
This is the level of disinformation that Modi spouts.
You didn't start this article by telling us how many you got, Ronnie.
Is it more than 20?
For democrats like Bailey, COVID shots are like Pokemon. Gotta inject ‘em all.
...
No. Herd immunity is not a criterion, not a yes/no condition. Herd immunity is omnipresent. It refers to the fact that the degree of immunity in a population is greater than the average of their individual immunities would say.
It wouldn't make sense to say, "Gravity occurs when somethinig weighs more than X," nor, "compuund interest occurs when total interest is X above the annual interest rate," would it?
At this point, I'm convinced everyone asking for amnesty should've been beaten to death and that next time it should be more preemptive.
They aren't sorry because they don't believe they were wrong. This is them convincing themselves that they're convincing you they were right. They know they're lying, you know they're lying...
Between Fauci's utterly retarded interpretation of herd immunity and Bailey's repeating it, just burn it all to the fucking ground. If Trump really is Hitler 2, great. He didn't and doesn't have to demonize anyone and convince me that anyone is secretly undermining American Culture/Western Civilization with any false stab-in-the-back myths, you fuckers are proud of it.
What do you think was the purpose of selling the 'herd immunity' notion? Do you think it was to sell mandates? Vaccines as a 'permanent immunity' thing? Showing off and elitist arrogance (a pretense that the disease would ultimately be eliminated)?
The Covid 1984 vaccines are very effective at destroying people's immune systems, thus people get the Convid time after time, causing fatal heart failures in young people, creating turbo cancers and sterilizing women and men.
Yes, they are very effective as per Bill Gates decree.
Lest we forget the great Lord Fauci and his decrees of social distancing, the lockdowns and ordering people to mask their faces. Practically forcing people to isolate themselves allowing elderly people to die alone in the death wards otherwise known as hospitals. Yes, between the Covid 1984 shots and little Lord Fauci's( the father of science) decrees, America was nearly brought to its knees. Children missed two years of school and small businesses closed by the thousands.
Billy Gates must be proud of himself.
What a waste of time.
Most of the population was COVID vaccinated.
Years later, everyone is fine.
Just move on, find yourself some new conspiracy for F* sake.
Of what ‘fake conspiracy’ do you speak?
From Copilot summary: Scott Gottlieb has discussed the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines in various contexts. He has highlighted that mRNA vaccines are highly effective in stimulating T-cell responses, which play a crucial role in preventing severe illness, hospitalizations, and deaths. This robust T-cell response provides longer-lasting protection against severe outcomes of the virus.
However, the antibody response generated by these vaccines tends to wane over time. While antibodies are effective at reducing the likelihood of infection and transmission shortly after vaccination, their effectiveness diminishes after a few months. This means that while the vaccines are excellent at preventing severe disease, their ability to prevent the spread of the virus is more limited over time.
Note that he was a former FDA head and on the board of Pfizer. So some will write him off because of that. He was often on CNBC during the pandemic and was much better than Fauci.
Separate the mandates from the effectiveness of the vaccine.
We need several articles on how to reform the Medical Industrial complex that Fauci presided over (CDC, NIH, FDA). Libertarians will want to get rid of a lot of it but the likelihood of that happening is low. With a single person like Fauci controlling funding of research, the results are not surprising. And his sell-by-date had long expired.
You might start the reform by actually learning about what it is you think is the Medical Industrial complex. Dr. Fauci headed the NIAID one of 27 sub agencies of the NIH. The CDC, NIH, and FDA are all separate agencies working under the Secretary of Health and Human services. Also, the grand funding process is much more complex than you know, and a single person does not have control.
There are numerous articles on how Fauci went around controls.
Well one thing it stimulated was the rise of turbo cancers.
IN Germany, the Convid vaxx killed more people than the coof.
In America it will be the same. The Vaccine did NOT protect people against the the virus(man made) it made them more susceptible to it but it made billions for Fraudci's buddies in big pharma.
If you took the death shot, you have a time bomb inside you waiting to go off.
Why did young people need to take the vaccine?
Because the mRNA shots needed to be added to the list of recommended child vaccines in order for liability protection for the pharmaceutical companies to be extended after their Emergency Use Authorizations expired.
let me guess ... the "time bomb" will go off when I'm somewhere between 80 and 100 years old?
Ill be waiting
I “believe in” vaccines, which is to say, that I appreciate as much as a layperson can the science behind vaccines as we’ve known them for decades: polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, diptheria, tetanus. Even the annual flu vaccine, which tries to keep up with the multiple flu variants.
My hesitation to jump on a COVID vaccine was multi-faceted, but largely based on the notions of “first time using mRNA in a wide-spread vaccine” and “vaccine produced 6 months after the virus was detected”.
The governments of the world have demonstrated repeatedly that an emergency vaccine is not a good idea. See swine flu vaccine and H1N1 vaccine. The government told us during the H1N1 “crisis” that “this time it will be different…we learned from the mistakes of swine flu…” And they were wrong, or lied about it. And now we’re seeing similar effects from COVID vaccines, which may or may not be mRNA-related. And an emergency rollout means it was impossible to study long-term effects.
Then there’s the whole notion that Big Pharma was desperate to rake in as many billions in COVID vaccine cash as they could while the governments of the world were ready to shovel cash into their gaping maws. Who knows what corners Big Pharma was willing to cut? Burying adverse reaction reports would be among the first things I would expect them to do. Why were so many people ready to suddenly trust them? And why were governments so ready to make it impossible to get recompense for vaccine adverse reactions? Who’s palms were getting greased?
Factor in the reality that for 99+% of the population, the disease itself was mild–something close to half the people who were infected never even had any symptoms. We knew early on that the disease was pretty deadly for people over 80 and for people with multiple comorbidities, especially obesity. Since I was not in any of the at-risk categories, my overall mistrust of the emergency vaccine and mRNA told me to not jump into the vaccine line.
It was only later, when government mandates forced my employer to require vaccine that I reluctantly got the J&J shot, which was an adenovirus vector vaccine and not an mRNA one. But I got my piece of paper and I was free to go to work. I never went back for any boosters.
One thing I find very interesting is the political divide.
People like Kamala Harris swore they would never take "Trump's vaccine" did a 180 as soon as the election was over.
I wonder how that would have played out differently had Trump eked out a win in 2020 and his administration pumped the masking, shutdowns, and vaccine like Biden's did. Would people like Molly and JFree have refused the vaccine and masks and called Trump fascist for the shutdowns?
Again, my own vaccine hesitancy was based on a mistrust of big pharma..."What I don't trust is a rushed vaccine jammed through the various processes in record time under emergency pressures. People and companies and governments will cut corners to make a deadline. People will get hurt. For low-risk people (remember, for 30% of COVID infections, the symptoms are simply not noticeable, and for another 30% or so, the symptoms are very mild) the vaccine side-effects may be worse than getting COVID."
Some of us did the math and calculated the risks before the shot came out. I had no desire to get it since there really wasn't any more reason to be concerned about it than the flu. I was cautiously optimistic that it could help old and immune compromised people.
The reporting on vaccine trials raised red flags that they were not giving honest data. When the real world application showed their claims to be utter bullshit I got a lot louder about how we were being fucked.
It's also interesting how they seemed to delay distribution of the jab until after the election and Biden was almost in office despite evidence that they were ready months earlier. It felt like part of the manipulation to flip the election.
I got Covid before the vax was available and basically I was just tired and lost my sense of smell (which still isn't 100% recovered).
Got vaxxed because my employer paid me $150 to and it meant we didn't have to wear masks at work anymore.
Got sick, not from the vaccine itself, but because it really stimulated an immune response since I had had it a few months before.
I will literally go back and reread and give due consideration to every single Ronald Bailey article this week if that fag tells us how many boosters he's had.
I am certain it's more than 20. Get your chickenskin into the comments and tell us otherwise, you sniveling coward. I don't know who you're think you're fooling in 2025, now that we ALL know the reality of LOLVID-19, but it sure isn't me.
How many boosters, Ronald? Don't be a pussy. Tell everyone how many you've had so we can all know what we're dealing with when we read these laughable "ScIeNcE" articles.
Tell us you coward. Tell us you gutless sack of jelly. TELL US HOW MANY BOOSTERS YOU'VE HAD, YOU STUPID LAUGHABLE DOLT.
Your comment is making my day.