Here's an expert trying to persuade you by saying he doesn't know and other rubbish:
Why did he bother doing the interview?
/QUOTE]
He was asked and truthfully answered questions.
I have worked with a fair few scientists- nobody EVER would commit themselves to 100% certainty about anything. What he did was explain things in a simple way. He obviously doesn't know how the Government are rolling this out, or how quickly enough vaccine can be made in ideal conditions.
He was quite clear to me. We need to vaccinate all those who are frail or likely to be worst affected, each person will require two vaccinations and the NHS has a robust and well practiced system for flu, which can be the model for C19.
Without time (the research was done in 12 months not years) we will not be able to say 100% that the vaccination is a lifetime jab. It may need repeating every year, decade, or certain people may need a booster. That's normal scientific practice. Do you think we should wait until 2030 to do tests on the original volunteers? We have to mitigate early use of a vaccine that may wear off in order to ensure that fewer people die.
To obtain herd immunity you need around 60+% to have a vaccine. The more the merrier.
Personally I would support some kind of penalty for anti-Vax individuals unless they can prove a medical condition. I would not be willing to work with someone who refuses masks, although I do work with an asmatic who cannot.
There are certain rules to society that we have to follow. We all know that drink driving may not injure the driver, but has a high risk of injuring a passerby. Therefore we penalise the DD by insisting that they stay sober and drive, or drink and do not.
