2 ms·
Of course it's not certain and 100%... i'm too lazy to find our local propaganda now, but when i got it, the numbers were in the rage of 96% efficacy (for not g
by ajsnigrutin 4y ago
Of course it's not certain and 100%... i'm too lazy to find our local propaganda now, but when i got it, the numbers were in the rage of 96% efficacy (for not getting it and not transmitting it) with minimal chances of side effects.
But in my country (slovenia), at the height of pressure to get vaccinated, if you were a young girl/woman (15-24 age bracket), the "96%" from above turned to "you'll probably still get covid, you'll still spread it, if you do, not one girl in your age bracket died yet because of or even with covid, but one girl died due to the vaccine... but, if you don't take the vaccine, you'll have to get tested every 48 hours or you'll be unable to go to work (oh, no testing center in your village, and you're not allowed to take the bus to the closest test location without a test)".
- otikik 4y agoI don’t understand. People who were not vaccinated had worse effects on average, including dying (painfully and slowly azfixiating as your lungs collapsed). This was common at the beginning of the pandemic, and extensively documented. Millions of people died this way. It’s choosing between that and … “a girl who died in Slovenia”. How are those two things equivalent? Even if you can spread COVID, if the effects in your body are lowered, chances are that you will remove the virus it from your body earlier (it can dedicate more resources to winning the battle instead of … breathing), so you will be effectively less contagious.