Originally Posted by
rickair7777
If necessary, there will be adjusted vaccines to improve duration and address variants.
Worst case might be an annual booster, like the flu shot but I tend to think that once the variant production slows down that boosters won't be required as often.
Also it depends on whether the goal is to avoid death, or avoid infection? At some point we'll probably be good as long as people aren't afraid of dying... good chance that immunity of any sort will provide fairly long protection against severe covid. Just like the flu shot... if you're at risk, better get the booster. If not, it's a personal decision based on the nuisance factor.
Why would the variant risk die down? This is a worldwide pandemic, and even if we were to vaccinate 100% of our citizens, there are billions of other people out there that have not yet gotten their first jab, far less all the white-tailed deer, ferrets, mink, etc. Now that it has jumped out of bats, it’s become pretty widely disseminated.
How does one adjust duration without adjuvants that will likely increase - at least to some extent - the side effects and/or risk of the vaccine itself?
But even then, this public health problem appears to have been so badly managed by Fauci and company that the percentage of people who are hardcore antivaxxers has increased, despite the demonstrated ability of the existing vaccines to limit severe clinical disease. You never get a second chance to make a first impression and the public opinion of the Public Health/Preventive Medicine community has taken some big hits. It seems doubtful a second vaccine rollout would go any better than the first one, even with an as yet only hypothetical better vaccine.
Just my opinion…