I would say its the implication that the virus is ineffective at preventing transmission: > this one mRNA shot […] that doesn’t stop transmission This phrasin

I would say its the implication that the virus is ineffective at preventing transmission: > this one mRNA shot […] that doesn’t stop transmission This phrasing implies can be easily misconstrued to that it's completely ineffective in preventing transmission… and it's not. The tweet is … off … here, > I can go unvaccinated against polio AIUI, one can go unvaccinated against polio because the vaccine against polio was so effective it is one step shy of being eradicated. The cognitive dissonance of refusing a COVID-19 vaccine on that argument is astounding to me… > I can go unvaccinated against […] tetanus, hepatitis, measles and mumps Presumably it depends on jurisdiction, but I was required to get those vaccines in order to attend school. Now, while I (personally) think the tweet is bad, Twitter's moderation is not the greatest here, and I would agree that banning comments is too heavy handed. If nobody can correct the poster, with nuanced debate that addresses their points specifically, how would they ever change their view? Simultaneously, I think people running discussion sites need the ability to moderate, and that moderation will be at times wrong. But users, simultaneously, need reasonable choice when it comes to services like this, so that if they disagree with the company/org's choices, they have a meaningful way to choose a different provider.