What do the terms "fully" or "completed" vaccinated mean? Increasingly, it seems the accurate meaning defining these terms is difficult to pin down, as a vaccinees receipt of a "safe and effective" vaccines does not render them "protected" unless 100% of everyone else receives the same "safe and effective" vaccine - which begs the question, just how effective (safety being an altogether different and separate issue) are vaccines? And if a person is vaccinated, for how long will their risk of that illness be reduced - and how long before they will need to be vaccinated yet again in order to maintain the risk reduction (I won't use the term "protection" as that would not be accurate since there are so many who are vaccinated who are getting ill - flu, pertussis, measles would be contemporary examples of this phenomenon).
No matter how many times you've received a vaccine, the knee-jerk response to even 1 case of an illness for which a vaccine exists is - vaccinate everyone all over again. The need for new vaccines seems to be created by the fact that they've been invented, regardless of risk for the illness in question - and clearly there is no need to study the effect of repeated vaccination over time, let alone the receipt of multiple vaccines at one time - in either a pediatric or an adult population.
There are currently more than 200 vaccines in development. The manufacturers of vaccines have no liability for their product and lobby politicians to legislate mandates and professional organizations to craft "guidelines" to further increase their profit. Once someone is vaccinated they will need to be re-vaccinated on a regular basis to maintain even a modest amount of risk reduction. Lots of upside, virtually no downside and built in repeat customers, for life - not a bad business model!
The United States has the most highly vaccinated population in the world - and we have some of the highest rates of chronic disease as well - yet no one seems willing to consider that perhaps vaccinations (which can stimulate inflammation and chronic auto-immune responses) might be a variable in this. It isn't "science" to give a medical procedure a free pass as a variable in health (or lack thereof). It isn't "science" to define health as narrowly as "absence of episodic, temporary infectious disease from which most people recover without complications". Yet we have defined "health" in this manner while it is quite clear that a great many of us are not healthy! It isn't "science" to refuse to compare the health of the vaccinated with the health of the unvaccinated (defined as those who have never received any vaccines - not just not receiving the vaccine or vaccines in question). It isn't "science" to use another vaccine as a "placebo" rather than using a biologically inert substance (like saline). It isn't "science" to re-define the criteria for a case of a disease (the criteria for polio changed not long after the vaccine was released, and **poof** the incidence/prevalence of polio declined precipitously - what a coincidence)! There may not be much "polio" in places that use the oral polio vaccine, but how odd that there is a significant amount of "Acute Flaccid Paralysis"!
It is impossible to eliminate all risk in life - including risk of infectious disease. People should be free to decide what risk they want to live with - risk of vaccination or risk of not being vaccinated.