Comment on Or in 2025. Looking at you, Florida.
analog_fluffy@lemmy.zip 9 hours agoA vaccine was once “a weakened form of the pathogen, introduced so the body could create antigens without actually becoming ill”. Your technobabble (sorry) sounds like something different.
Allero@lemmy.today 8 hours ago
Yes, because we knew no better. Now we can be more precise and replicate specifically the parts immune system can recognize that are not harmful to us. If anything, we made vaccines safer than they were before.
It’s like saying solar panels are technobabble because we once gathered nearly all energy by burning wood or coal. Sure, we did, but why do it now? We know better options.
Besides, it takes school-level knowledge of biology to understand the reasoning behind these vaccines. They rely on the knowledge we had for many decades now; it was only hard to produce such RNA sequences at scale and to meet all the standards while doing so. Now we can do this, and it makes no sense to do otherwise.
Traditional vaccines are more dangerous and, at their best, just as efficient. Besides, they typically take longer to develop and test, and time was a pressing issue. Some traditional-style vaccines got eventually rolled out, but they did not outperform the alternatives, and so they didn’t gain much traction.
analog_fluffy@lemmy.zip 3 hours ago
It’s a nice story but I’m not buying it.
Allero@lemmy.today 2 hours ago
Because I studied well at school (which is enough as a prerequisite), and also happen to have a major in microbiology, which is related to what we’re talking about.
If there are things in particular that you are skeptical about, let me know.
analog_fluffy@lemmy.zip 2 hours ago
It’s a stretch. Maybe you are being a bit credulous.