5 ms·

Yes, they did backtrack. They said the vax prevents COVID spread. Then in the next phrase said.. but we don't know about Delta yet. At the time of publication,

Yes, they did backtrack. They said the vax prevents COVID spread. Then in the next phrase said.. but we don't know about Delta yet. At the time of publication, delta was the most commonly spreading variant. That means they made a claim 'the vax prevents COVID spread' that had an unknown truth value at the time, especially in the context of contemporaneous events. The second link you provided is actually relevant. Thanks.

woodruffw 5y ago
I think it's a remarkable stretch to frame responsible editing ("the current evidence suggests reduced transmission with vaccination, but there's a confounding unknown") as "backtracking."
- iammisc 5y ago
  Except, this is like saying the current flu vaccine provides 100% resistance to the 1918 spanish flu, while leaving out that it doesn't work for this year's virus. All perhaps statements that could be considered true, but not useful if it's dealing with current events.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Nobody uses language like “100% resistance” when talking about diseases. That’s not what the Nature article claims, and not what any reputable source would claim.
david38 5y ago
Just because Delta was spreading doesn’t mean they had time to do a study on it. You have to look at the paper’s submission date.
- beerandt 5y ago
  Which is fine- but that also means it isn't applicable to the current variant. If you say it's too old to study the current virus, it's also too old to justify any treatments or policy with the current virus.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Viral changes are incremental; research needs to be updated as changes occur, but it would be extraordinary for it to be invalidated outright. Thus far, the research has mostly shown incremental changes to transmissibility &c., changes that do not warrant significant policy shifts. Getting vaccinated continues to be an excellent public health policy and goal.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      That's not what I'm saying- people are picking and choosing when to apply marginal changes to questionably applicable research and when not to. The same people saying "close enough" with vaccine transmissibility trials based on the original virus applying to delta, are the same ones saying natural immunity transmissibility studies done on the original virus don't apply to delta. And now that we've got real numbers on natural immunity that beat vaccination (alone) numbers, that number is no longer "good enough"? BS. It's not just moving goal posts, it's completely different moving goalposts for each side. ETA: >extraordinary for it to be invalidated outright. Actually, if the whole "vaccinated cases are usually so mild you don't have symptoms" is true, and the Israeli research about viral loads for break through cases being as high as unvaccinated cases is also true... Then vaccinated workers at a hospital could very well be worse, because they'd be transmitting the virus and infecting patients, while being less likely to have symptoms making them aware that they're likely infected and causing harm. That's not exactly far fetched, based on current claims.
      - jjwiseman 5y ago
        > And now that we've got real numbers on natural immunity that beat vaccination (alone) numbers You know what gives far superior protection than natural immunity gained via infection? Getting vaccinated after having been infected. You're more than twice as likely to be re-infected if you've had COVID once and don't get vaccinated vs. having COVID and then getting vaccinated[1]. So even if you've had COVID, if you take the free, extremely safe vaccine you are now less than half as likely to be re-infected, which likely means you're much less likely to spread it to someone else. > Then vaccinated workers at a hospital could very well be worse, because they'd be transmitting the virus and infecting patients, while being less likely to have symptoms making them aware that they're likely infected and causing harm. This is something that anti-vax people seem to like to bring up as a possibility with no data to back it up. The data we actually do have[2], by directly measuring the secondary attack rate ("chance that an infected person infects another person") actually shows that vaccinated people are less likely to infect others. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... 2. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.31.2100640 https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E...

woodruffw 5y ago

I think it's a remarkable stretch to frame responsible editing ("the current evidence suggests reduced transmission with vaccination, but there's a confounding unknown") as "backtracking."

iammisc 5y ago
Except, this is like saying the current flu vaccine provides 100% resistance to the 1918 spanish flu, while leaving out that it doesn't work for this year's virus. All perhaps statements that could be considered true, but not useful if it's dealing with current events.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Nobody uses language like “100% resistance” when talking about diseases. That’s not what the Nature article claims, and not what any reputable source would claim.

david38 5y ago

Just because Delta was spreading doesn’t mean they had time to do a study on it. You have to look at the paper’s submission date.

beerandt 5y ago
Which is fine- but that also means it isn't applicable to the current variant. If you say it's too old to study the current virus, it's also too old to justify any treatments or policy with the current virus.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Viral changes are incremental; research needs to be updated as changes occur, but it would be extraordinary for it to be invalidated outright. Thus far, the research has mostly shown incremental changes to transmissibility &c., changes that do not warrant significant policy shifts. Getting vaccinated continues to be an excellent public health policy and goal.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    That's not what I'm saying- people are picking and choosing when to apply marginal changes to questionably applicable research and when not to. The same people saying "close enough" with vaccine transmissibility trials based on the original virus applying to delta, are the same ones saying natural immunity transmissibility studies done on the original virus don't apply to delta. And now that we've got real numbers on natural immunity that beat vaccination (alone) numbers, that number is no longer "good enough"? BS. It's not just moving goal posts, it's completely different moving goalposts for each side. ETA: >extraordinary for it to be invalidated outright. Actually, if the whole "vaccinated cases are usually so mild you don't have symptoms" is true, and the Israeli research about viral loads for break through cases being as high as unvaccinated cases is also true... Then vaccinated workers at a hospital could very well be worse, because they'd be transmitting the virus and infecting patients, while being less likely to have symptoms making them aware that they're likely infected and causing harm. That's not exactly far fetched, based on current claims.
    - jjwiseman 5y ago
      > And now that we've got real numbers on natural immunity that beat vaccination (alone) numbers You know what gives far superior protection than natural immunity gained via infection? Getting vaccinated after having been infected. You're more than twice as likely to be re-infected if you've had COVID once and don't get vaccinated vs. having COVID and then getting vaccinated[1]. So even if you've had COVID, if you take the free, extremely safe vaccine you are now less than half as likely to be re-infected, which likely means you're much less likely to spread it to someone else. > Then vaccinated workers at a hospital could very well be worse, because they'd be transmitting the virus and infecting patients, while being less likely to have symptoms making them aware that they're likely infected and causing harm. This is something that anti-vax people seem to like to bring up as a possibility with no data to back it up. The data we actually do have[2], by directly measuring the secondary attack rate ("chance that an infected person infects another person") actually shows that vaccinated people are less likely to infect others. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... 2. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.31.2100640 https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E...