3 ms·

It's what we have, according to the designers of the various vaccines. Unless you are suggesting that all things are true unless proven otherwise, in which case

by ppf 6y ago

It's what we have, according to the designers of the various vaccines. Unless you are suggesting that all things are true unless proven otherwise, in which case I'd ask you to go back and check some books on elementary logic. There is some work after the fact to measure the effect on Covid transmission of the vaccines, but even that isn't very promising. It's odd when "stopping people dying" is "a huge downgrade". I suspect what you mean is that the vaccines in their current form will not get us out of the restrictions we are currently living under, which is true (and incredibly predicable).

Dylan16807 6y ago
> It's what we have, according to the designers of the various vaccines. Unless you are suggesting that all things are true unless proven otherwise, in which case I'd ask you to go back and check some books on elementary logic. That's not a citation. And vaccines are designed with a very general goal of "make the body fight this". That can potentually affect both symptoms and transmission. Don't argue in bad faith and equate that to "anything could be true" > There is some work after the fact to measure the effect on Covid transmission of the vaccines, but even that isn't very promising. Huh? Checking if the vaccine does anything at all is after the design is done. The choice of when to test symptoms vs. spreading is more about difficulty of getting the data than anything else. > It's odd when "stopping people dying" is "a huge downgrade". Stopping one person from a chance of dying is a downgrade from both stopping that and stopping transmission to more people that have their own chance of dying.
- ppf 6y ago
  >That's not a citation. And vaccines are designed with a very general goal of "make the body fight this". That can potentually affect both symptoms and transmission. Don't argue in bad faith and equate that to "anything could be true" >Huh? Checking if the vaccine does anything at all is after the design is done. The choice of when to test symptoms vs. spreading is more about difficulty of getting the data than anything else. You're the one arguing in bad faith, demanding evidence of a negative. When the vaccines were released, the published testing only covered a few key endpoints - primarily, incidences of lab-tested Covid cases. Any work on measuring effects on transmission was done by 3rd parties (in this case, I believe it was researchers in Israel). Covid has a very specific (and small) risk profile. That's the idea we were all sold - vaccinate the vulnerable, get on with our lives. Given that it presents very little risk to the vast majority of people, it doesn't really matter about transmission. Except that is, now we are apparently trying to surpress potential mutations, which means we'll be battling a relatively harmelss (compared to the great pandemics of the past) disease forever.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > You're the one arguing in bad faith, demanding evidence of a negative. I demanded evidence because you stated it as a fact. And are you trying to imply it's one of those things that's impossible to prove? It's not. You collect some data and it either shows that transmission rates differ or that they don't differ. > That's the idea we were all sold - vaccinate the vulnerable, get on with our lives. We were also sold on "vaccinate the people near the vulnerable so they won't spread it to the vulnerable".
    - ppf 6y ago
      It's a fact that the various vaccines were released without any information about their effectiveness on transmission. It's not impossible to prove, it's just not been done (nor, if the tests were done, do we know what the results would be). >"vaccinate the people near the vulnerable so they won't spread it to the vulnerable" Why does that matter, if the vulnerable are already vaccinated? That was the whole point of vaccinating them in the first place.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        > It's a fact that the various vaccines were released without any information about their effectiveness on transmission. It's not impossible to prove, it's just not been done (nor, if the tests were done, do we know what the results would be). So do you withdraw the claim that "what we got" are vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity? > Why does that matter, if the vulnerable are already vaccinated? That was the whole point of vaccinating them in the first place. Not everyone can be vaccinated and supplies have been limited. And less people getting sick is good even if it's milder.
        ppf 6y ago
        If you really want to nitpick, "what we got" are vaccines that are not known to provide sterilising immunity, and the 3rd party testing that has been done shows limited effect on reducing transmission. That being the case, it would be surprising if they did have sterilising immunity.

by ppf 6y ago

Dylan16807 6y ago

> It's what we have, according to the designers of the various vaccines. Unless you are suggesting that all things are true unless proven otherwise, in which case I'd ask you to go back and check some books on elementary logic. That's not a citation. And vaccines are designed with a very general goal of "make the body fight this". That can potentually affect both symptoms and transmission. Don't argue in bad faith and equate that to "anything could be true" > There is some work after the fact to measure the effect on Covid transmission of the vaccines, but even that isn't very promising. Huh? Checking if the vaccine does anything at all is after the design is done. The choice of when to test symptoms vs. spreading is more about difficulty of getting the data than anything else. > It's odd when "stopping people dying" is "a huge downgrade". Stopping one person from a chance of dying is a downgrade from both stopping that and stopping transmission to more people that have their own chance of dying.

ppf 6y ago
>That's not a citation. And vaccines are designed with a very general goal of "make the body fight this". That can potentually affect both symptoms and transmission. Don't argue in bad faith and equate that to "anything could be true" >Huh? Checking if the vaccine does anything at all is after the design is done. The choice of when to test symptoms vs. spreading is more about difficulty of getting the data than anything else. You're the one arguing in bad faith, demanding evidence of a negative. When the vaccines were released, the published testing only covered a few key endpoints - primarily, incidences of lab-tested Covid cases. Any work on measuring effects on transmission was done by 3rd parties (in this case, I believe it was researchers in Israel). Covid has a very specific (and small) risk profile. That's the idea we were all sold - vaccinate the vulnerable, get on with our lives. Given that it presents very little risk to the vast majority of people, it doesn't really matter about transmission. Except that is, now we are apparently trying to surpress potential mutations, which means we'll be battling a relatively harmelss (compared to the great pandemics of the past) disease forever.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > You're the one arguing in bad faith, demanding evidence of a negative. I demanded evidence because you stated it as a fact. And are you trying to imply it's one of those things that's impossible to prove? It's not. You collect some data and it either shows that transmission rates differ or that they don't differ. > That's the idea we were all sold - vaccinate the vulnerable, get on with our lives. We were also sold on "vaccinate the people near the vulnerable so they won't spread it to the vulnerable".
  - ppf 6y ago
    It's a fact that the various vaccines were released without any information about their effectiveness on transmission. It's not impossible to prove, it's just not been done (nor, if the tests were done, do we know what the results would be). >"vaccinate the people near the vulnerable so they won't spread it to the vulnerable" Why does that matter, if the vulnerable are already vaccinated? That was the whole point of vaccinating them in the first place.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      > It's a fact that the various vaccines were released without any information about their effectiveness on transmission. It's not impossible to prove, it's just not been done (nor, if the tests were done, do we know what the results would be). So do you withdraw the claim that "what we got" are vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity? > Why does that matter, if the vulnerable are already vaccinated? That was the whole point of vaccinating them in the first place. Not everyone can be vaccinated and supplies have been limited. And less people getting sick is good even if it's milder.
      - ppf 6y ago
        If you really want to nitpick, "what we got" are vaccines that are not known to provide sterilising immunity, and the 3rd party testing that has been done shows limited effect on reducing transmission. That being the case, it would be surprising if they did have sterilising immunity.