Should the COVID-19 injections be renamed to something other than “vaccine”?

When coronapanic hit and various public health prophets went on television calling themselves “scientists,” friends who are medical school professors said that, when the predictions of these physicians and public health bureaucrats inevitably failed the public’s confidence in medicine would be reduced. They cringed every time Anthony Fauci was in the spotlight, for example.

I wonder if the same thing could be happening with the shots that are currently marketed as “vaccines”. People who’ve had 3 or 4 shots are regularly getting sick with COVID-19. Some are being hospitalized and, in the long run, nearly all of the COVID-19 deaths will be among this heavily-jabbed population. By contrast, the childhood vaccines that we desperately want people to apply to their kids, e.g., the measles vaccine, actually stop humans from getting sick with measles.

Now that we know that COVID-19 vaccines don’t work like “regular vaccines” is it time to rename them so that their ineffectiveness doesn’t tarnish the reputation of the “real vaccines”?

Ignoring any serious harm that the COVID-19 vaccines might cause, the closest analogy that I can think of to the situation is what we call “the flu shot”. Americans don’t usually say “I am vaccinated against influenza.” We say “I had all of my childhood vaccinations and this year I got a flu shot.” The flu shot is put in a “can’t hurt; might help” category. When a person who had the flu shot gets the flu anyway, that doesn’t result in him/her/zir/them or his/her/zir/their social network to lose confidence in “vaccine vaccines.”

Readers: What do you think of the idea? Half of the hardest core Mask and Vaccine Karens whom I know seem to have gotten COVID-19 within the past few months. Wouldn’t the overall image of vaccines be improved if we said “They had a COVID-19 shot, which was good prep for their COVID-19 infection” rather than “They were vaccinated against COVID-19 three times and then got COVID-19 anyway”?

Related:

12 thoughts on “Should the COVID-19 injections be renamed to something other than “vaccine”?

  1. It is a good idea, but it would require the censors to cooperate, otherwise the idea could not spread. One way to achieve the cooperation might be to remind the censors that “operation warp speed” was an evil Trump initiative.

    It would take a month or so to purge the 2021/2022 Democrat support for the “vaccine” from the public mind and the Internet archives, after which we could call it the WuFlu shot.

  2. It’s perfect! Biden can take credit for ending the pandemic – just as he said he would – and now getting a “COVID Shot” is just a regular part of life that everyone’s living, like belching after drinking a Pabst Blue Ribbon tallboy. Or maybe Miller Light. It’s been a long winter and the weather’s warming up, so it’s about time.

    The nomenclature change will make it clear that everything is back to abnormal.

    https://theweek.com/articles/468552/6-best-onion-parodies-joe-biden

    https://www.theonion.com/shirtless-biden-washes-trans-am-in-white-house-driveway-1819570732

  3. The lion kingdom called it quits at vaccine #3. It’s obviously a government gravy train program to pay Moderna’s CEO now.

  4. “Nearly all of the COVID-19 deaths will be among this heavily-jabbed population.”

    Philip, what exactly are you basing this on?

    • PhilG is a science-denier, he doesn’t need any stinking facts tainting his feelings.

    • David: people can’t be killed twice by COVID-19., even if we agree that it is the worst disease ever to afflict humanity. Most humans have already been infected by SARS-CoV-2 so the ones who are easy to kill are already dead. Who is left for the virus to kill? Old people who become vulnerable due to some other health issue. Nearly all old people are vaccinated.

      I think that you can already see this in Israel and the UK, both of which keep accurate data (unlike the US!). They’re saying “the age-adjusted death rate is lower for the vaccinated”, which may well be true but if you dig into the data you see that the majority of deaths are among the vaccinated, which is not inconsistent with the claim about death rates.

      Does that make sense?

      A simpler way to look at it is to consider a population that is 100% stuck with 4 shots. Everyone killed by COVID-19 in that population would be someone who had received 4 shots.

    • David: See page 44 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1058464/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-9.pdf

      We learn that in February 2022, for example, the largest number of deaths in England was among people who’d had 3 vaccine shots. The technocrats who wrote the report give the same explanation that I did, but with more words: “In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease.”

  5. > By contrast, the childhood vaccines that we desperately want people to apply to their kids, e.g., the measles vaccine, actually stop humans from getting sick with measles.

    There is surprisingly little evidence for this, and when I saw the graphs the first time my mind nearly exploded. https://dissolvingillusions.com/graphs-images/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.