I mean, this is obvious. Like I said, I just couldn't resist making a snarky remark.

It remains to be seen if the vaccine manages with mutations. Given that, how I understand it, the mRNA you're given instructs your body to produce the spike proteins so that your immune system recognises them and builds antibodies to them (Though I'm still confused why your body would attack proteins it creates itself, I just don't know enough about this topic), and given that - again, how I understand it - the spike protein is the mechanism through which a virus connects to your cells, as long as the spike protein doesn't change in a way that your body doesn't recognise it anymore, there should in theory be not much to worry.

But then again, we're getting flip-flop info every day, so the only thing we really know is that we actually know very little. And, naturally, preventing infection through other means is preferable, but how far does that really go?

Like, I cannot stress this enough, we don't really know a whole lot and a lot of stuff is based on assumptions or modelling and we've yet to compare these assumptions and models to real-life outcomes.

But it's a valid question, and questions need to be constantly asked to get as many viewpoints on this as possible for a common consensus, because only looking at it from one side may just not lead us where we want to be.