[flagged]
And there is something to that claim. Because who doesn't get vaccinations? Because where are sanitary conditions so bad new variants develop? In places where people (and potentially animals) are crammed together without the ability of ill people to self quarantine. And those places are not typically rich and wealthy.
If you asked a top virologist if there is an socioeconomic component to virus contagion I'd expect most experts to agree that there is one.
> but in the long run they are a band-aid to the economical divides and exploitation.
> If wars motivated by resource exploitation and class-system were not a thing vaccines would see a limited use.
And neither is true. Absent inequality, vaccines are still very beneficial and useful.
Absent war, vacciness are still beneficial and useful.
War makes vaccines unavailable along with other treatments. Powerty is the same.
Vaccines did not help there, especially the evil doing of "ordinary" "educated" citizens.
That will claim many more lives than "contagious" fictional diseases.
Mostly out of morbid curiosity.
Vaccines may help but not if there is income inequality, war, exploitation, human trafficking, crime and enmity.
If our problems are not solved, vaccines can be seen as idols, like in ancient times. They "may" help for unknown reasons.
Did they saved lives in the war in Ukraine or the massacre in Ghaza?
I do not expect answers.
War and inequality is abolished, as of 1630 today, three minutes time.
Do people magically stop dying of preventable disease?
No known vaccine at this time.