what if a vaccine is approved and available but only somewhat effective
assuming no serious side-effects, any protection is better than nothing, so we'll take it if it's safe even if it only cuts your chance of catching covid-19 by, say, 50%.
but how will public policy react? if this happens while donnie is in charge, he'll tout it like an absolute guarantee, declare victory, and strut about as if he cured cancer himself.
but if we return to normal and end social distancing, that may make thing worse despite the vaccine.
responsibly, i would think any return to normalcy should only happen after the numbers of new cases and such have dropped considerably, whether or not there's a vaccine. if there's a vaccine, it should obviously lead to the numbers dropping, but we should wait for that before re-opening.
and, of course, there should be continued monitoring, testing, contact tracing, and shutting down of hot spots as needed.
= new reply since forum marked as read
different approaches to developing resistance are being followed, including whole new ones that may ultimately revolutionize "immunization." Someday.
It only makes sense that whatever is developed first is rushed fastest to those who need it most.
One list I read included medical and public service first responders and residents and workers in nursing homes.
Right now I'm overdue to get the first of two different pneumonia vaccines, which need to be given a month apart. If Covid-19 requires 7 for a couple years to mostly protect high-risk people, until something better is developed, I'll need to be more disciplined about keeping on top of those. And then still be cautious about exposures. 
Sure wish more people had voted responsibly when they should have. Just a few more.
