All immunity against all disease wanes over time, none of it is life long, which is why the elderly are more vulnerable to all disease than the young.
Only naysayers, anti-vaxers and COVID deniers makes claims around vaccines being imperfect as an argument against use, rational people understand that nothing is perfect and openly discuss the need for boosters and research into ongoing monitoring and treatment. As [member=324]DJC[/member] has done above.
Nobody who is rational has ever sold the public a forever solution, nobody who is rational has ever claimed things will return to be 100% the way they were before using technology that is available now, nobody who is rational has ever made claims of solution perfection.
Making repetitive cases against such alleged claims of failures to achieve perfection is arguing a ghost, the alleged failure doesn't exist because the alleged claims of being perfect never did!
The whole naysayer argument is an elaborate 'smokescreen', a construction designed to imply a conflict of opinion and a lack of consensus amongst specialists, ironically it is a tactic copied from the annals of the cigarette industry's opposition to deleterious effects of smoking.
What really surprises me, it that many naysayers keep posting links to peer reviewed papers that conclude the exact opposite of their conspiracy claims! I suppose they really think that nobody will or has read them, simply because they didn't! :o
Only naysayers, anti-vaxers and COVID deniers makes claims around vaccines being imperfect as an argument against use, rational people understand that nothing is perfect and openly discuss the need for boosters and research into ongoing monitoring and treatment. As [member=324]DJC[/member] has done above.
Nobody who is rational has ever sold the public a forever solution, nobody who is rational has ever claimed things will return to be 100% the way they were before using technology that is available now, nobody who is rational has ever made claims of solution perfection.
Making repetitive cases against such alleged claims of failures to achieve perfection is arguing a ghost, the alleged failure doesn't exist because the alleged claims of being perfect never did!
The whole naysayer argument is an elaborate 'smokescreen', a construction designed to imply a conflict of opinion and a lack of consensus amongst specialists, ironically it is a tactic copied from the annals of the cigarette industry's opposition to deleterious effects of smoking.
What really surprises me, it that many naysayers keep posting links to peer reviewed papers that conclude the exact opposite of their conspiracy claims! I suppose they really think that nobody will or has read them, simply because they didn't! :o
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"