3 ms·

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

by 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.

Dylan16807 6y ago
You still haven't said a single number, url, or searchable phrase. Asking for a source is not nitpicking. For what it's worth if I search for "covid vaccine transmission effectiveness" my top results are "COVID-19 vaccines are probably less effective at preventing transmission than symptoms", which is vague on the term "less" but still suggests a large improvement over not being vaccinated, "New research suggests vaccines reduce risk of COVID-19 spread through nose and mouth", and "Pfizer vaccine shots actually stop asymptomatic transmission, too"
- ppf 6y ago
  It's not nitpicking to ask for a source for the statement "it's not known if the various vaccines give sterilising immunity", it's asking for proof of a negative. The only possible refutation of such a statement is a counterexample (that is, evidence of it providing sterilising immunity). If we were to set this discussion up properly, the burden of proof would be on the person making the statement "this vaccine provides sterilising immunity". I'm fully aware of the results you found, as I already indicated with statements like "3rd party testing that has been done shows limited effect on reducing transmission". As I already said, it would be very surprising if a vaccine had limited effectiveness at reducing transmission (as your search results indicate), and also provided sterilising immunity. In fact, it seems to me that the known fact that transmission does still occur, preculdes the idea that the vaccines have sterilising immunity. I don't get what your point is. I suggest you work out what that is, before delving into more complicated subjects. As I have essentially repeated what I said before, it seems we are now going in circles.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > It's not nitpicking to ask for a source for the statement "it's not known if the various vaccines give sterilising immunity", it's asking for proof of a negative. You're rewriting history. You definitely did not say "it's not known" originally, you made a very clear statement that they didn't confer it. > I don't get what your point is. That if "limited" is 80% then you are grossly misrepresenting the situation to talk like transmission isn't affected.
    - ppf 6y ago
      I already clarified my statement, quite a few replies ago. I've also already suggested that the known low effectiveness of reducing transmission would indicate that it does not have sterilising immunity. But wait! > 80% Now, you've made a pretty positive statement there. My turn to ask you for a link, or other proof.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        > I already clarified my statement, quite a few replies ago. You didn't "clarify" because I asked if you were withdrawing the original statement and you ignored the question entirely. You also accused me of "nitpicking" your new statement, when the new statement is a very different thing from what I originally replied to. > Now, you've made a pretty positive statement there. My turn to ask you for a link, or other proof. Sure, that's in the first article I quoted the title of. https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-are-probably-less-effective-at-preventing-transmission-than-symptoms-heres-why-156611 https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-are-probably-l... It's talking about the Pfizer vaccine. > I've also already suggested that the known low effectiveness of reducing transmission would indicate that it does not have sterilising immunity. Your original statement, and some of your followup statements, argued against the vaccine reducing spread at all. If you're talking purely about sterilizing immunity now, ignoring any other reduction in spread, then either you're moving the goalposts or some massive miscommunication happened multiple times in a row. But sure, it might not be sterilizing. And in that case I say: This whole conversation was pointless because I don't care if it's sterilizing, I care if it reduces spread by a lot.

by ppf 6y ago

Dylan16807 6y ago

You still haven't said a single number, url, or searchable phrase. Asking for a source is not nitpicking. For what it's worth if I search for "covid vaccine transmission effectiveness" my top results are "COVID-19 vaccines are probably less effective at preventing transmission than symptoms", which is vague on the term "less" but still suggests a large improvement over not being vaccinated, "New research suggests vaccines reduce risk of COVID-19 spread through nose and mouth", and "Pfizer vaccine shots actually stop asymptomatic transmission, too"

ppf 6y ago
It's not nitpicking to ask for a source for the statement "it's not known if the various vaccines give sterilising immunity", it's asking for proof of a negative. The only possible refutation of such a statement is a counterexample (that is, evidence of it providing sterilising immunity). If we were to set this discussion up properly, the burden of proof would be on the person making the statement "this vaccine provides sterilising immunity". I'm fully aware of the results you found, as I already indicated with statements like "3rd party testing that has been done shows limited effect on reducing transmission". As I already said, it would be very surprising if a vaccine had limited effectiveness at reducing transmission (as your search results indicate), and also provided sterilising immunity. In fact, it seems to me that the known fact that transmission does still occur, preculdes the idea that the vaccines have sterilising immunity. I don't get what your point is. I suggest you work out what that is, before delving into more complicated subjects. As I have essentially repeated what I said before, it seems we are now going in circles.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > It's not nitpicking to ask for a source for the statement "it's not known if the various vaccines give sterilising immunity", it's asking for proof of a negative. You're rewriting history. You definitely did not say "it's not known" originally, you made a very clear statement that they didn't confer it. > I don't get what your point is. That if "limited" is 80% then you are grossly misrepresenting the situation to talk like transmission isn't affected.
  - ppf 6y ago
    I already clarified my statement, quite a few replies ago. I've also already suggested that the known low effectiveness of reducing transmission would indicate that it does not have sterilising immunity. But wait! > 80% Now, you've made a pretty positive statement there. My turn to ask you for a link, or other proof.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      > I already clarified my statement, quite a few replies ago. You didn't "clarify" because I asked if you were withdrawing the original statement and you ignored the question entirely. You also accused me of "nitpicking" your new statement, when the new statement is a very different thing from what I originally replied to. > Now, you've made a pretty positive statement there. My turn to ask you for a link, or other proof. Sure, that's in the first article I quoted the title of. https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-are-probably-less-effective-at-preventing-transmission-than-symptoms-heres-why-156611 https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-are-probably-l... It's talking about the Pfizer vaccine. > I've also already suggested that the known low effectiveness of reducing transmission would indicate that it does not have sterilising immunity. Your original statement, and some of your followup statements, argued against the vaccine reducing spread at all. If you're talking purely about sterilizing immunity now, ignoring any other reduction in spread, then either you're moving the goalposts or some massive miscommunication happened multiple times in a row. But sure, it might not be sterilizing. And in that case I say: This whole conversation was pointless because I don't care if it's sterilizing, I care if it reduces spread by a lot.