What I have on this is the virus can cause a bad reaction, but at the time of infection maybe not much of the virus gets into the person. So, at first, there might not be much of a reaction. But then the virus can multiply and cause major inflammation if the virus reaches the lungs.
However, now we have the so-called "weaker" version of the virus, but it can be caught more easily. Why is it easy to catch but there are fewer really bad cases?
My opinion > it is easier to catch because it has more attachment sites on the surface of the virus. Therefore it is more likely to get stuck in the nose so it never reaches the lungs where it can cause real trouble. And so we see more sniffles cases
But how come still the "weaker" virus does kill certain people? My opinion is the person sniffed some nose virus down into the lungs, or it dripped from the nose down the throat into the lungs, maybe while the person was asleep.
Also, of course, some number of us got shots before our first encounter with the little creature. So, our bodies were ready to cancel it quite quickly.
Meanwhile, we are indeed hearing about the people who get into major problems with the shot.
Well . . . I personally was told, long ago, that any vaccine can have a bad reaction in certain people; years ago, we were told to wait a while where we got some shot, so they could make sure we did not have a reaction. The problem is how a person is able to handle it well or react badly. Maybe like this, we have people who can die of one bee sting . . . not because of the bee, but because the person's body overreacts to the venom of the bee. I think it could be something like this; and I'll "bet" no one is saying for all of us to avoid locations of bees because of how certain ones can die of a sting!
But > I understand the mRNA vaccine is different than ones we have had before. We used to have had at least one vaccine that contained a partly killed virus! The idea was to make the virus harmless and put it in the person so you could get immune to it. And there might be no telling how many different substances would be in that virus and each substance could cause its own antibody production.
Why not make a vaccine which causes a reaction to only one substance on the virus? And why not make it the substance which the virus uses to attach itself to the human cell?? This way, antibodies will grab the attachment chemical and clog it so the virus can't get into a cell . . . while the body also is sending killer cells to get rid of the virus.
Yes, to my knowledge, the mRNA is a factory chemical which produces only one specific substance of the virus. And that target substance is the one on the tip of the virus "spike" which attaches the virus to a human cell. And it produces a lot, I understand a lot more than any of the substances that would be in an injected whole virus. And so . . . then . . . "of course" . . . if some poor person is bad at reacting to the vaccine substance . . . it can be a super-bad reaction since so much of the substance will be produced by the mRNA vaccine.
The injected mRNA causes super-production of the chemical which attaches the virus to a cell in the lungs or nose or maybe somewhere else. So, you might see the efficiency of this > how, instead of making the body immune to various substances of the virus, just make it immune to the chemical part that makes the virus able to connect . . . to "hook" itself . . . to the cell. Then antibodies grab the "hooks" of the virus and block its ability to grab onto a cell, plus the antibodies mark the virus to be munched by killer cells while the virus is still stuck out in the open and not in cells.
But the thing is . . . if a person reacts badly to the hooking substance of the virus, there will be a very strong and harmful reaction since there is a *l~o~t* of that "hook" which was produced by the injected mRNA.
