5 ms·

Your posts are themselves spreading antivax falsehoods. The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in reducing severity of infection and spread.

trhway 5y ago
No, they aren't effective in reducing spread. Singapore, Israel, UK, Wisconsin studies or even just public data on US infections all tell the same picture.
- pcwalton 5y ago
  You literally have to just search [covid vaccine reducing spread] to find articles all saying the same thing, for example https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y Not acknowledging this is just denial.
  - trhway 5y ago
    Speaking about denial - looks like you didn't read the article you submitted: " A person who was fully vaccinated and then had a ‘breakthrough’ Delta infection was almost twice as likely to pass on the virus as someone who was infected with Alpha." ( and that is the same what i was saying months ago without any study and just based on simple arithmetic on public data https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28081982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28081982) "Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus." To the comment below: I quoted facts/numbers, not conclusions (which is the title/subtitle/etc). The article spins those facts into conclusions sounding much more substantive and far going than what the facts/numbers are. There is no meaningful difference between the 57% and 67% when it comes to the spread of that an infectious virus in a dense human society (as i stated above "not effective in reducing spread"). The article is right though saying 57 < 67 on the 1st grade arithmetic basis, you win.
    - pcwalton 5y ago
      See, you quoted a couple of sentences of an article literally titled "COVID vaccines cut the risk of transmitting Delta — but not for long" and subtitled "People who receive two COVID-19 jabs and later contract the Delta variant are less likely to infect their close contacts than are unvaccinated people with Delta." and then used it to imply that COVID vaccines don't cut the risk of transmitting the delta variant. That's a classic denier move. Yes, vaccine-induced protection against transmitting the delta variant may be limited; no, that doesn't mean it's nonexistent. There are other studies too, like [1]. Finally, the site guidelines explicitly ask you not to say things like "looks like you didn't read the article you submitted". [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2106757 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2106757

trhway 5y ago

No, they aren't effective in reducing spread. Singapore, Israel, UK, Wisconsin studies or even just public data on US infections all tell the same picture.

pcwalton 5y ago
You literally have to just search [covid vaccine reducing spread] to find articles all saying the same thing, for example https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y Not acknowledging this is just denial.
- trhway 5y ago
  Speaking about denial - looks like you didn't read the article you submitted: " A person who was fully vaccinated and then had a ‘breakthrough’ Delta infection was almost twice as likely to pass on the virus as someone who was infected with Alpha." ( and that is the same what i was saying months ago without any study and just based on simple arithmetic on public data https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28081982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28081982) "Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus." To the comment below: I quoted facts/numbers, not conclusions (which is the title/subtitle/etc). The article spins those facts into conclusions sounding much more substantive and far going than what the facts/numbers are. There is no meaningful difference between the 57% and 67% when it comes to the spread of that an infectious virus in a dense human society (as i stated above "not effective in reducing spread"). The article is right though saying 57 < 67 on the 1st grade arithmetic basis, you win.
  - pcwalton 5y ago
    See, you quoted a couple of sentences of an article literally titled "COVID vaccines cut the risk of transmitting Delta — but not for long" and subtitled "People who receive two COVID-19 jabs and later contract the Delta variant are less likely to infect their close contacts than are unvaccinated people with Delta." and then used it to imply that COVID vaccines don't cut the risk of transmitting the delta variant. That's a classic denier move. Yes, vaccine-induced protection against transmitting the delta variant may be limited; no, that doesn't mean it's nonexistent. There are other studies too, like [1]. Finally, the site guidelines explicitly ask you not to say things like "looks like you didn't read the article you submitted". [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2106757 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2106757