> 1) mRNA technology was not experimental

Perhaps, but the specific vaccines were.

> 2) I don't know about you but I got my shot in the shoulder, not the back door

As I'm sure you understood, I was talking about coercion by the back door - the whole "we're not going to force individuals to vaccinate, but we're going to force restaurants and gyms to require vaccination" approach. (And don't try to say it was an objective public health measure - if that was the case they would've made natural immunity as acceptable as vaccination)

▲

Arodex 2 days ago | parent [-]

>And don't try to say it was an objective public health measure - if that was the case they would've made natural immunity as acceptable as vaccination)

It was an objective public health measure, because it is well-known from actual examples that opening such option would lead people to try to get infected instead of being vaccinated, breeding even more variants and hospital saturation.

Note also that "previous contamination" has never been an acceptable derogation in any public health system for any of the compulsory vaccinations.

	▲	lmm a day ago \| parent [-]
		> It was an objective public health measure, because it is well-known from actual examples that opening such option would lead people to try to get infected instead of being vaccinated, breeding even more variants and hospital saturation. Bullshit. > Note also that "previous contamination" has never been an acceptable derogation in any public health system for any of the compulsory vaccinations. Nonsense. Literally the first example I looked up was the CDC's measles vaccination advice https://www.cdc.gov/measles/hcp/vaccine-considerations/index... : laboratory confirmation of immunity or of the disease is considered presumptive evidence of immunity in exactly the same way that a vaccination record is.