I guess what is commonly called sterilizing immunity. Immunity which is so effective that the illness doesn't occur and which makes it impossible to infect others.
In this context I was recently pointed to the story of Marek's disease [0], which went from a "quite low death rate" to "100% lethal" in a few decades. I think it's worth to know about this and have a long, hard think about the potential consequences of universal, non-sterilising vaccination. We might be locking ourselves into a situation with no escape.
This has nothing to do with mRNA (to the best of my knowledge). mRNA is just a means to an end to get an immunogen into your body. Issues of effectiveness are (as far as I know) entirely due to the immunogen and not the delivery method (ie mRNA).
Vaccines vary in effectiveness. Both the extent of immunity they confer and how long those effects last. A vaccine that's less effective than we might like is still a vaccine. I don't think arguments over what should officially constitute "immunity" are very interesting or insightful - it's a meaningless line in the sand. Ask instead about (relative to the unvaccinated) incidence of death, incidence of permanent effects, severity of symptoms, rate of hospitalization, rate of spread to others, and similar.
Well put! The singular focus on death rate in this kind of discussions feels narrowminded, bordering on ignorance, as the severity of symptoms and brutal long term effects for many are just as awful
…? Actually, it has exactly the same effect as the smallpox vaccine. It vaccinated, aka immunised. What are you on about?