> I may have a wrong understanding, but, if I'm right, I'm honestly puzzled why people ever thought the RNA vaccines were worth the time because it doesn't seem like the right mechanism to choose.
Because none of that is actually happening, and RNA vaccines aren't causing the kind of problems the hysterical moon-howlers are coming up with. Admittedly they're a relatively new technology, having only been in use for about 50 years as opposed to attenuated viruses which have been in use for about 250 years.
So, which part?
The debatable claims are: 1) that RNA vaccines tell the body to make spike proteins and it will do this indefinitely, 2) the spike protein is not an indefinitely relevant marker by which to eliminate COVID, particularly as it evolves and 3) spike proteins aren't great to have around in the body, (yes I've heard they get cleaned up fairly promptly via mechanisms)
I'm not saying it's nanomachines or anything, and I'm not making a fuss about how long they've been around; I didn't mention it. I got vaccinated. I'm on the team. But if these planks of my understanding aren't sound I'm interested.
Fundamentally, I want to understand how these things work. The protein based vaccine is uncomplicated, I understand the basics of the mechnism, the RNA one leaves lingering questions that I can't source answers to. I'm an educated professional, and I've read some papers and watched a lot of the news on the matter on here and other platforms, and that hasn't settled my questions.
Because none of that is actually happening, and RNA vaccines aren't causing the kind of problems the hysterical moon-howlers are coming up with. Admittedly they're a relatively new technology, having only been in use for about 50 years as opposed to attenuated viruses which have been in use for about 250 years.