4 ms·

The vaccines reduce transmission but saying they are “very good” at this conflicts with basic logic, since that descriptor can’t be applied to both the efficacy

by gfodor 5y ago

The vaccines reduce transmission but saying they are “very good” at this conflicts with basic logic, since that descriptor can’t be applied to both the efficacy in March (when it was very good) and the efficacy today, which we know is far less.

maxerickson 5y ago
Infections among the vaccinated are like 6x less frequent than the unvaccinated. It's perfectly compatible with base logic to say that there's a bar for very good that they were above then and are still above now, so that's not really a great argument. If you want to construct an argument about what 'very good' should mean, that's different, but there's no logical contradiction involved. It's like if you eat the best cake of your life and call it very good, that doesn't mean you are lying if you later also call the second best cake of your life very good.
- gfodor 5y ago
  Bill Gates on the vaccines: “ “You know, we didn’t have vaccines that block transmission. We got vaccines that help you with your health, but they only slightly reduced transmission,” Now go read my original post and tell me who sounds more in line with reality: the person noticing the relatively low efficacy of the vaccines to stop transmission and saying this deficiency should be incorporated in policy, or those who say it is very good (often because they do not want to lead people to avoid the vaccine, ironically, which happens due to loss of trust from such spin) and go on to write and impose policies that assume it is highly effective at stopping all aspects of the virus.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    So people lose trust because of spin and "do their own research" and it's vaccine positive messaging (about the vaccines that are safe and work well) that is ultimately the problem?
    - gfodor 5y ago
      There is no one problem (nice strawman), but when the CDC makes bold claims in a chaotic, dynamic environment that are unjustified based on the science, which they have done endlessly, it erodes trust to the point where people presume they are bad faith, have conflicts of interest, or are simply incompetent, so subsequent messaging has less effect.

by gfodor 5y ago

maxerickson 5y ago

Infections among the vaccinated are like 6x less frequent than the unvaccinated. It's perfectly compatible with base logic to say that there's a bar for very good that they were above then and are still above now, so that's not really a great argument. If you want to construct an argument about what 'very good' should mean, that's different, but there's no logical contradiction involved. It's like if you eat the best cake of your life and call it very good, that doesn't mean you are lying if you later also call the second best cake of your life very good.

gfodor 5y ago
Bill Gates on the vaccines: “ “You know, we didn’t have vaccines that block transmission. We got vaccines that help you with your health, but they only slightly reduced transmission,” Now go read my original post and tell me who sounds more in line with reality: the person noticing the relatively low efficacy of the vaccines to stop transmission and saying this deficiency should be incorporated in policy, or those who say it is very good (often because they do not want to lead people to avoid the vaccine, ironically, which happens due to loss of trust from such spin) and go on to write and impose policies that assume it is highly effective at stopping all aspects of the virus.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  So people lose trust because of spin and "do their own research" and it's vaccine positive messaging (about the vaccines that are safe and work well) that is ultimately the problem?
  - gfodor 5y ago
    There is no one problem (nice strawman), but when the CDC makes bold claims in a chaotic, dynamic environment that are unjustified based on the science, which they have done endlessly, it erodes trust to the point where people presume they are bad faith, have conflicts of interest, or are simply incompetent, so subsequent messaging has less effect.