If you take the vaccine you don't have 95% protection from getting covid 7 days after the second dose. 

The risk of the unvaccinated getting covid in the trial was .88 %. 8 out of 18k people got it.
The risk of the vaccinated getting covid was .04%. 162 out of 18k people got it.

So do the math and you have %95 effective. .04 compared to .88

Well most people who get covid don't even know that they had it.

How many of you tech worshipping government trusting absolute guinea pigs thought that if you took the vaccine then the overall risk would be reduced by 95%?

The media is bought and paid for by Big Pharma.  I think Fox News at one point stated that 15 out of 22 of their commercials during a program were from Big Pharma.

It is frustrating that we are told to get our shots and then we will be protected, only to find out it isn't as protective as thought and a 3rd and 4th shot are recommended.

That doesn't make me an anti-vaxer.

Nor does my hope that an updated vaccine geared to the variants be developed instead of just that initially developed pre-variants. (Though as i posted yesterday, a recent study shows the crossreactivity of the vaccine among variants: the killer t-cells of our immmune system are increased among the vaccinated (Pfizer and J&J in the study, unfortunately Moderna wasn't included in that study) and among the previously infected. That puts the unvaccinated uninfected-previously at a disadvantage in terms of their body's ability to fight the virus.

That was before us teachers were told to get vaccinated.

And I had also said I wanted to at least wait a year to see what side effects and risks the vaccine posed, as borne out of data after a widespread first wave of vaccinations.

Now we got the shots and thought all would be fine, only to hear more of the same is... required? The CDC has itself cited research showing the spread of the virus isn't significantly less after injections.
Exactly as I stated the results of a study on this page and another thread a day ago. The vaccinated and the infected have greater t-cell counts to fight infection. As the CDC stated last summer: public policy should pivot its message to protecting individual health outcomes as less severe effects, less hospitalizations and death, comes with vaccination.

Evidence on the efficacy of booster shots, however, is pending. The Korean gov't is mandating injections every six months? 4th? 5th? 6th... Will every three months be demanded to be considered vaccinated?

No vaccine pass for those vaccinated before last July. That means no restaurants and now an announcement no department store visits without a shot every six months. Is Emart and LotteMart a department store?

Frustrating. Try to comply only to find new requirements demanded (moving the goal posts) when the evidence-based justification for it is NOT preventing the spread of infection (despite the reporters and gov't still feeding that line). ... That said, reducing the strain on intensive care units IS a reason, so if ventilators are maxed out, then proactive measures to reduce public use of businesses will help.

As I have often said: everyone should still social distance and mask up.

The prior hope that vaccination would lead to a maskless return to normal life and freer travel was a pipe dream. Arghh!

You do realize, that our understanding of the risk from Covid these days isn't so much about the risk of infection but more about the risk of severe disease don't you? You're going have to lift your trolling and misinformation game Jimbo!

Considering all other vaccines went through years of trials and research before being put onto the market, don't require frequent boosters every 6 months, nor do people still catch the illness in queastion, then questioning this "vaccine" is fair game.

Pivot against what exactly? Misunderstanding and misinformation?