There should be several options available within a reasonable time frame. As to which is best for you will be informed by availability in your country, as well as efficacy data from phase 3.

A Viral Vector vaccine (Astrazeneca) may seem potentially safer, but if you read the info in the other thread it's possible that type of vaccine might fail in a particular individual if he/she happens to have already acquired immunity to the vector virus, ie the immune system will destroy the vector before it can deliver it's payload. If I get that one, personally I'll follow up with a covid antibody test just to make sure it worked... that might actually be a required part of the process. They will try to select a vector which most people should have not been previously exposed to.

The DNA/RNA vaccines have not been used extensively in people yet (other than trials), but they have been tested in animals (not just for covid). The trails so far look safe, obviously more to follow. The technology shows promise and has some potential big advantages but time will tell. Don't get caught on the "genetics" aspect, it's not changing YOUR genetic material... it's not messing with your operating system, more like installing a temporary app. We'll see soon enough.

Delusional means never saying you’re sorry, but......it took about 20 seconds to find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

That's correct, I don't want the antibody response. I don't think the mRNA vaccine is unsafe, it will be good for the flu, and Norovirus down the road, however, it's the next coronavirus that poses the possible danger.

That’s what ya got in answer to the Supreme Court decisionon the states’ police power, which is pretty settled law here. Try again. I’m Libertarian Conservative, just not delusional. There’s a difference.

No sh!t, Sherlock. The Constitution was written a few decades before the first vaccine was invented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, not true, small pox vaccine (immunization?) were started in Boston in 1721. And probably in use before that in the native population based on scars at the time. Washington required them during the Revolution for troops. Both prior to 1787. There’s a book on it.

So this is true of the low mid tier and lower tier schools sure. Most of the universities I was talking about are not sellers they are buyers. You know this because there is always a waiting list and out a good sized out right rejection list. Take UNC one of the ones that just shut down again. If they make it a requirement people will gladly take it. Same with UGA the school is hard to get into and kids want to go there. No 18 year old is gonna go no I am going to go to the University of Phoenix over UGA. Living in GA I can absolutely see the USG requiring for all state schools and Emory either leading or following shortly before or after.

Yes, this.

The better colleges (pretty much any that are not automatic admission for all comers) trade on their reputation, which is derived from their alumni's accomplishments, which is enabled in large part by networking. Again we get back to the importance of interpersonal relationships.

Attending classes, parties, frats, and spring break with the future CEO of a fortune 500 company is one thing. Having been on a zoom call with him decades ago is not the same.

Also I don't know but I assume kids still like to have actual sex? They don't have an app for that on their iphone?