6 ms·

You have seen the scientists writing explicit contrary to your claims, and even the specific vaccine testing protocols, I’ve given you the exact links and quote

by acqq 6y ago

You have seen the scientists writing explicit contrary to your claims, and even the specific vaccine testing protocols, I’ve given you the exact links and quotes, but you doubled down. The UK authorized Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, and still: https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-vaccine-wont-free-self-165612950.html https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-vaccine-wont-free-self-1656... “Although the vaccine will give recipients immunity from the virus, scientists do not yet know whether it will stop them being carriers. Government sources said it was likely to be months before there was any prospect of the vaccine negating the need for self-isolation.”

phobosanomaly 6y ago
svrb's comment is specifically with regard to vaccines: "They do not—and are not meant to—prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus." What you acqq are posting is “Although the vaccine will give recipients immunity from the virus, scientists do not yet know whether it will stop them being carriers." Can you see the very fine semantic line that is being walked here? The public is being told by health officials that the virus gives 'immunity' from the virus. In the same breath, you are supporting the argument that it does nothing to prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus. You guys are acting like this is all rather obvious, but it's not at all. If I walked up to someone on the street and said that a vaccine will give them immunity, what do you think they would take that to mean? Well, the NHS, and the CDC are both saying that the vaccine gives 'immunity' and 'protection.' You have to stop getting angry at me, and consider that if you're not making a convincing argument to me, how the hell are you going to make a convincing argument to somebody who doesn't have a degree in biochemistry.
- acqq 6y ago
  https://thehill.com/news-by-subject/healthcare/528619-pfizer-chairman-were-not-sure-if-someone-can-transmit-virus-after https://thehill.com/news-by-subject/healthcare/528619-pfizer... “Pfizer chairman Albert Bourla told Dateline host Lester Holt that the pharmaceutical company was “not certain” if the vaccine prevented the coronavirus from being transmitted, saying, “This is something that needs to be examined.”” December 03, 2020 - 02:36 PM EST
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    That's a pretty well-worded statement from Al. Sounds reasonable to me. There's no RCT to definitively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will prevent someone who has received the vaccine from transmitting virus to another person under any circumstances, no matter how unusual. Remember the claims at the start of this thread were: "They [vaccines] do not—and are not meant to—prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus. They only reduce the symptoms." Albert isn't saying any of that stuff, so why on earth would I disagree with him? Article goes on to say "In November, Pfizer announced that its vaccine candidate had been shown to be more than 90 percent effective at preventing COVID-19" Aaaaaand so we're back at my comment before this one. What do they mean by 'prevent?' Because they're saying it 'prevents' COVID-19, just like the CDC did in the quote I shared that svrb got so angry at me about. You guys are saying the vaccine does nothing to prevent people from getting SARS-CoV-2, but the CDC, and the articles you yourself are sending me are saying that the damn thing 'prevents' COVID-19, which is an infection with SARS-CoV-2. Is the vaccine magically making people asymptomatic while an infection rages inside of them? Is it preventing a virus that destroys lung tissue from somehow showing any outward signs of dyspnea? Is it somehow blocking a cytokine storm? I don't think so, that's how Dexamethosone is being used to treat this, not vaccines. Maybe in the long run by shifting Th1/Th2 response or something, but that would have quickly become apparent in the routine labs done in the process of clinical trials. Does it magically break up thromboemboli in the bloodstream? How would a vaccine prevent kidney damage from showing up in someone with a raging, yet completely asymptomatic infection? What is the mechanism by which a vaccine would allow a raging infection to occur inside of someone, while showing zero outward signs of it? Because if it's knocking down levels of active virus in the body by triggering a robust T and B-cell response, it's reducing viral shedding, and it's reducing transmission. That's the same thing that all the papers you have shared with me so far have indicated. What do you want me to say? Don't sneeze on grandma until she gets vaccinated. I said that earlier.
    - acqq 6y ago
      No. Covid-19 is the illness (symptomatic). Exactly like defined in the vaccine protocols. One can carry a virus (one can have positive PCR) without being ill (asymptomatic). We also know that their CT value (which corresponds to the amount of virus) is often as low (low values are high amount of virus) as by those who have symptoms. That’s why they infect more than those with symptoms (who stay at home or in the hospital). That’s common knowledge.

by acqq 6y ago

phobosanomaly 6y ago

svrb's comment is specifically with regard to vaccines: "They do not—and are not meant to—prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus." What you acqq are posting is “Although the vaccine will give recipients immunity from the virus, scientists do not yet know whether it will stop them being carriers." Can you see the very fine semantic line that is being walked here? The public is being told by health officials that the virus gives 'immunity' from the virus. In the same breath, you are supporting the argument that it does nothing to prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus. You guys are acting like this is all rather obvious, but it's not at all. If I walked up to someone on the street and said that a vaccine will give them immunity, what do you think they would take that to mean? Well, the NHS, and the CDC are both saying that the vaccine gives 'immunity' and 'protection.' You have to stop getting angry at me, and consider that if you're not making a convincing argument to me, how the hell are you going to make a convincing argument to somebody who doesn't have a degree in biochemistry.

acqq 6y ago
https://thehill.com/news-by-subject/healthcare/528619-pfizer-chairman-were-not-sure-if-someone-can-transmit-virus-after https://thehill.com/news-by-subject/healthcare/528619-pfizer... “Pfizer chairman Albert Bourla told Dateline host Lester Holt that the pharmaceutical company was “not certain” if the vaccine prevented the coronavirus from being transmitted, saying, “This is something that needs to be examined.”” December 03, 2020 - 02:36 PM EST
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  That's a pretty well-worded statement from Al. Sounds reasonable to me. There's no RCT to definitively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will prevent someone who has received the vaccine from transmitting virus to another person under any circumstances, no matter how unusual. Remember the claims at the start of this thread were: "They [vaccines] do not—and are not meant to—prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus. They only reduce the symptoms." Albert isn't saying any of that stuff, so why on earth would I disagree with him? Article goes on to say "In November, Pfizer announced that its vaccine candidate had been shown to be more than 90 percent effective at preventing COVID-19" Aaaaaand so we're back at my comment before this one. What do they mean by 'prevent?' Because they're saying it 'prevents' COVID-19, just like the CDC did in the quote I shared that svrb got so angry at me about. You guys are saying the vaccine does nothing to prevent people from getting SARS-CoV-2, but the CDC, and the articles you yourself are sending me are saying that the damn thing 'prevents' COVID-19, which is an infection with SARS-CoV-2. Is the vaccine magically making people asymptomatic while an infection rages inside of them? Is it preventing a virus that destroys lung tissue from somehow showing any outward signs of dyspnea? Is it somehow blocking a cytokine storm? I don't think so, that's how Dexamethosone is being used to treat this, not vaccines. Maybe in the long run by shifting Th1/Th2 response or something, but that would have quickly become apparent in the routine labs done in the process of clinical trials. Does it magically break up thromboemboli in the bloodstream? How would a vaccine prevent kidney damage from showing up in someone with a raging, yet completely asymptomatic infection? What is the mechanism by which a vaccine would allow a raging infection to occur inside of someone, while showing zero outward signs of it? Because if it's knocking down levels of active virus in the body by triggering a robust T and B-cell response, it's reducing viral shedding, and it's reducing transmission. That's the same thing that all the papers you have shared with me so far have indicated. What do you want me to say? Don't sneeze on grandma until she gets vaccinated. I said that earlier.
  - acqq 6y ago
    No. Covid-19 is the illness (symptomatic). Exactly like defined in the vaccine protocols. One can carry a virus (one can have positive PCR) without being ill (asymptomatic). We also know that their CT value (which corresponds to the amount of virus) is often as low (low values are high amount of virus) as by those who have symptoms. That’s why they infect more than those with symptoms (who stay at home or in the hospital). That’s common knowledge.