Some diseases do. Look at how many Native Americans died from their first exposure to various European diseases. That said, there are something like 160 strains of rhinovirus, so you're always getting different one each time you get sick, with no prior immunity, as far as I know, so for that specific variety, I'm pretty sure you are correct.

For a robust immune response, you'll generally want an attenuated virus, not a dead one. I mean, it doesn't matter much for something like flu, because it mutates so quickly that any immunity approaches zero after two or three years anyway, but for any vaccine that you want to actually last for decades, unless your exposure risk is low (e.g. polio in the western world), a live, weakened infection is probably a better option.

See above. The reason attenuated viruses are so much more effective is because they trigger multiple levels of immune response by infecting cells. Programming cells to create parts of real viruses differs only from attenuated vaccines mainly in that the resulting products do not then go on to infect more cells, and that the mRNA bits are usually time-bombed so that they stop producing those virus parts after a period of time, thus minimizing the rate of actual cell death.

But either way, the continued exposure over a longer duration, coupled with the involvement of cellular stress signals, help trigger both the innate and adaptive immune systems, resulting in a stronger immune response than if you just had bits of unexpected dead virus material floating around in isolation.

That's actually way more true with the dead virus vaccines you think are so great. For a classic example, the flu vaccine that caused a detectable uptick in narcolepsy (an autoimmune condition) in Europe, called Pandemrix, was an inactivated, adjuvanted vaccine. The adjuvant somehow triggered autoimmunity in some people. And the adjuvant was needed precisely because without that, the inactivated vaccine did not produce an adequate immune response.

IMO, the odds of an mRNA vaccine causing an autoimmune response are likely orders of magnitude less than an adjuvanted, attenuated vaccine doing so, because an adjuvant causes the immune system to pay more attention to whatever is nearby, including your own cells.

Not all of them. Some of them are independent research scientists, some of them immunologists working in the public sector or academia, etc. The percentage of professionals in this area who work for the vaccine companies is tiny compared with the percentage of independent researchers studying viruses and vaccines. That said, I'd trust even the research teams at the vaccine companies over some random person on YouTube or other Internet sites who shows no actual sign of understanding immunology, but bulls**ts just well enough people to convince a lot of other people who also don't understand it. And sadly, I've seen so much of that level of noise that I have a standing "No, I won't watch your YouTube video about medical subjects; if it were legitimate, it would have been published in a properly peer-reviewed journal" policy at this point. :-)

I mean sure, the folks without clean water might be less susceptible, but only because they're the ones still left who didn't die from it the first time.

As if that would make the slightest difference to anything.

You can't really boycott things anymore. For one thing the same handful of stock holders own controlling shares in every single company you would ever buy anything from.

And you can't just go homestead. Any of the land that could support you is already owned by someone else. You can try squatting but they are rapidly making that a more serious crime than murder. Used to be if you just bought land and did nothing with it squatters could move in. Land was use it or lose it for exactly that reason. Those laws are going away.

There is nowhere to escape to anymore. Except cope. You can always escape into cope. Just tell yourself that nothing bad is going to happen and nothing is going to change at least not for you personally. Bad things always happen to other people right?

Ok, what is is the 3rd option for coal?

Sure, whatever makes you feel better about it. For nuclear power in particular amongst energy generation I think it's the only option that's been proven to work.

France, China, India, Brazil, Canada, you look at the under construction list of reactors worldwide and I believe all of them have a an SOE behind them. The economics of nuclear are unique enough amongst energy generation it just totally gears it towards that model.

It would be souless corporate but at least it would be pedo Nazis.

It's called "my anti-climate-change political position is falling apart more every year so I have to grasp onto the arguments of the past for dear life".

It's just the same chud arguments we've heard for years.

Also just to tack on because I can't believe I missed it, this backs up my main point: OPG is a wholly government owned enterprise.

Yeah I'm not saying never but if I had to devise a plan and spend money to build reactors right now I'm going to go with LWR or PWR, shrimple as. Doesn't mean you can't also support and fund SMR projects but those are future things.

At least not if you're American or european. The reason Japan has a tough time just building out wind and solar is that they have very very little land. The best explanation of Japan I have ever heard in my life is take the population of California, triple it, squeeze it in the Montana and then take away half the land because it's all unlivable mountains ranges.

Japan has a genuine land shortage. Now I haven't actually run the numbers it's entirely possible that they could still power their country with wind and solar but let's take it for a moment that they can't yeah they could have a reason to run nuclear power plants.

For absolutely every other country on the face of the Earth the only reason to fire up nuclear power plants is to keep AI data centers fed without all that filthy filthy wind and solar that could potentially overtake fossil fuels before the people who own all the fossil fuels have secured their ownership of the means of producing electricity...

What I'm saying is our civilization, assuming it survives and that's all stretch at this point, is going to use wind and solar to power itself. That's just what we're going to do. You can go look up the YouTube channel technologies connections they have a long video explaining the math I can't be bothered if you can't...

But the problem is there really isn't any reason for these giant wind and solar farms to be owned by individuals. There just isn't any good reason for it. They should just be built by the government and provide electricity is a free public good. The same way we have a military to protect ourselves there are just some things that a civilization needs everyone to have. We all need to have the military keeping other countries from invading and we all need electricity. And economies of scale are still a thing so throwing up your own solar panels is just silly.

So the people who are used to owning and controlling your access to electricity don't want to give up all that power and money so they are slowing the transition to ensure that when it's all done they're still in charge and you still have to do what they say.

Meanwhile we have ai data centers who want power now and they don't want to wait and there sure should not going to bother going up against the oil companies. So nuclear power is back on the table. Which is all fine and good except well, look you've read the history of Fukushima or at least I hope you have. You know the corners were cut and you know which corners were cut. Did you know that the public blamed the engineers instead of the CEOs and suits?

When the engineers warn that these nuclear power plants are unsafe nobody is going to pay any attention to them. When the plants melt down that's the only time anyone's going to pay attention to the engineers and they're going to pay attention just long enough to blame them instead of the wealthy CEO who has an entire team of people dedicated to protecting his reputation...

Or Barbra Streisand's 1969 acceptance speech.

Does burning it help or hurt the air? That's the choice, there is no 3rd option.

If "clean coal" wasn't just a scam for decades maybe there would be, but it was a scam. It's better left in the ground.

There is just a little hint of a regulatory framework in place and that's what causes the cost overruns. Assuming JD Vance or Donald Trump wins in 2028 then that regulatory framework will go up in smoke and they can slap these together for next to nothing coming in well under budget. Now the downside to that is they will eventually experience a catastrophic meltdown but that's a problem for the rural communities stuck with these or maybe even the suburban communities stuck with these. Not the billionaires who are going to suck down all that cash and power their AI slop with it.

Basically that's a you problem not of them problem

Coal kills but it doesn't slowly over time. The problem with those reactors is when they go, and with the weak regulatory framework we put in place after 40 plus years of constant deregulation and whining about bureaucrats, when they go not if they basically ruin your property.

Dying of lung cancer in your 60s sucks. But it's still preferable to losing all your property in America. We do not treat people without property well.

Also what you describing is called a false dichotomy. Nobody's going to build coal because it costs too much. They're going to build wind and solar farms. The only reason that they aren't doing that is it requires bigger bribes to Trump to overcome the oil industry brides. The reason nuclear power is a thing right now is that the oil industry doesn't really see it as a threat the way they see wind and solar as a threat.