Totally agree but you see, when emergency legislation kicked in around the world when the WHO declared pandemic, these emergency laws allow the mandating of medicines. But not any old medicines, vaccines only.
Just asking for honesty. They should admit the aim was to develop a vaccine but they are not there yet. I see the scam of classing these medicines as vaccines an abuse of power.
The legislation makes sense as a vaccine will stop spread, which is why they were originally aiming for 60% of population inoculated................if the vaccine is effective that is enough. Less effective, then more percentage needed which is why that 60% went to 70%, then 80% etc.
Tell people a pre-emptive medicine has been developed that lasts months that will come out seasonally. Tell them it will be beneficial in protecting them from severe illness from covid. But don't tell them it's a vaccine because it is not. Neither is the influenza one.
The requirement for informed consent for medical treatment has long been the status quo and we have now set precedent to remove that via mandates. Couldn't develop a vaccine, so the solution was water down the definition of vaccine so a "vaccine" could be developed.
Now if you are happy the protocol of human trials are no longer required for these seasonal so called vaccines because we are so much smarter now.........up to you. But it concerns the shit out of me.

@puff I understand your point but I'm not sure I agree with it. In order to get people to use the medication it had to have a name. This is not the only vaccine that is not 100% effective.

What should it have been called? And what should the general public have been told in order to get people to take it?

@Lorajay Not much in science is 100%.
You cannot talk about vaccines without mentioning immunity. Immunity means protection from being affected. Immunity means you are protected and by virtue of that protection, you will not transmit or pass on. With this assumption, you may then consider attaining a herd immunity through a vaccination program.
Vaccines fall under pre-emptive medicines, but are the Holy Grail of pre-emptive medicines. But there are many other pre-emptive medicines not called vaccines; Blood pressure pills, cholesterol medicine, insulin etc etc. If the medicine works in preventing serious illness, people will take without coercion. Pre-empt the illness.

So we as a populace should be asking medical science experts and get peer agreement to this question;
Where do covid medicines lie in the hierarchy of pre-emptive medicines? With polio vaccine being the pinnacle and eating oranges the base, as oranges will also pre-emptively boost your immunity.
All pre-emptive medicines aim to boost immunity, protect people from more severe illness, but only vaccines provide immunity.
Boost and provide do not hold the same meaning.
Current covid medicines fall lower on the scale and should not be termed a vaccine, what the pinnacle is called.
If you recall the start of the pandemic, the call was to lockdown to protect the vulnerable until a vaccine was developed. Then once vaccinated, the vulnerable were protected and we could all get on with it. Great!!!!!! Good idea, fully support. But what happened?
The whole population was required to get this vaccine before the state re-introduced liberty. Coercion was used and most importantly, the vulnerable were still not protected enough to drop things like masks/ lockdowns etc.
The vulnerable are self aware of their vulnerability. I'm sure the uptake of covid medicines for this group would have been good, even if they were informed it is a pre-emptive medicine rather than a vaccine.
When you talk medicine and mention vaccine most people see vaccines as a silver bullet, battle over. And there are vaccines like that, vaccines are supposed to be like that.
It's false advertising to sell a product as a vaccine when immunity is not provided.

@puff it seems like you just repeated your first statement instead of answering my question which is what should they have been called and what should the public have been told that was any different from their repeated statements that the vaccine did not provide complete immunity but instead kept you from going to ICU and dying?

@Lorajay "What should they have been called?"
A medicine that should protect you from the more severe symptoms of covid. The medicine will not stop you catching it or transmitting it. Do not think it's a vaccine, it is not, not yet ie we are unsure how long it lasts etc. New medicine, new virus eg still learning. It's the best we have atm.

"What should the public have been told that was any different from their repeated statements that the vaccine did not provide complete immunity but instead kept you from going to ICU and dying?"
But the public was not told that were they? As late as December last year Biden, the POTUS, was telling people that the vaccinated don't transmit eg unvaccinated are dirty scum, sack 'em. [politifact.com]
Then earlier in July 2021, Biden also tells some porkies, like if vaccinated you won't catch covid [snopes.com]
We were told to do it to protect others, our loved ones. This insinuates that if you did not get a jab you were selfish and didn't care about others, which I have been accused of at this site. Which, by your own admission is a croc of shit eg transmission and catching not stopped, "instead kept you from going to ICU and dying"

I remind you that both Biden and Fauci, both double boosted, still caught covid. Vaccine my spotty botty

@Lorajay FYI the same concerns I have addressed

@puff I always knew the vaccine did not protect me completely from getting covid. I guess I was fortunate not to hear the blunders.

Your angst and compulsion to prove that the government actions during the pandemic were incorrect are actually sad to me. I think the vaccine program saved lives regardless of how it was sold. COVID was a fast advancing disease that we were not prepared for. That packed the wrong man it was more likely for mistakes to be I think the government and the CDC had a learning curve.I also think your constant criticism of the best efforts that we had to curtail it did not help the situation.

@Lorajay There are mistakes and there are conscious actions equating an abuse of power. The failure to release patent rights on these medicines in this very serious, life threatening world wide pandemic is disgusting and not defendable, especially considering tax payer money funded much of the research. Is not the goal to save lives?
You are too forgiving. These people need to be held to account, or it will happen again.
As for the effectiveness of these vaccines, highly debatable. Look at Africa and Asia.
We the public were fools to comply with medical mandates so easily, to give up our right to refuse medical treatment.
I don't just whinge, I try to work out solutions. And a simple solution is to remove medical experts from policy decision making next pandemic, as they are shown to be compromised by the pharmaceutical industry.

Virus equates hazard, getting sick/ death equates risk, lockdowns/ vaccines/ masks equate control methods. It screams safety issue so put safety experts in charge next time. They utilise science as well, medical experts should advise them not direct them.

We agree. Consent is important.