3 ms·

Given that vaccines don't affect transmission at all, but do suppress symptoms, any such lawsuits would run in the other direction - people who can't take the

Given that vaccines don't affect transmission at all, but do suppress symptoms, any such lawsuits would run in the other direction - people who can't take the vaccines due to allergies etc suing people who did, on the grounds that they knew or should have known that they'd become invisible spreaders and dangerous to those who couldn't take vaccines. But in reality no sensible court would allow such arguments in either direction. Trying to assign moral culpability to an invisible body state you can't sense is idiotic and dystopian.

dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
> Given that vaccines don't affect transmission at all That is false. Stop spreading dangerous nonsense. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211124-vaccines-reduce-covid-transmission-by-40-who https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211124-vaccines-redu... https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-l...
- native_samples 5y ago
  You cite, I cite, we all cite ... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7... ... but who's right? If vaccines really affected transmission a lot, we'd see it in drastically reduced case numbers. What we actually see is that post-vaccination case numbers reach record highs. That should be a pretty basic reality check on any claims that transmission is heavily affected. Either that, or you have to believe transmissibility has no impact on case numbers. What you tend to see is that studies that are older or use older data conclude more effectiveness. The New Scientist article you cite presents evidence from a study that used data only pre-Delta. But the point people are making when they say it doesn't affect transmission is about the current state of play. Not the situation back in March two major mutations ago.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
    Citations are irrelevant, it's the preponderance of evidence. You can deploy as many non-sequiturs and specious arguments in service of the view you cling to, but the evidence remains the same.

dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago

> Given that vaccines don't affect transmission at all That is false. Stop spreading dangerous nonsense. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211124-vaccines-reduce-covid-transmission-by-40-who https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211124-vaccines-redu... https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-l...

native_samples 5y ago
You cite, I cite, we all cite ... https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7... ... but who's right? If vaccines really affected transmission a lot, we'd see it in drastically reduced case numbers. What we actually see is that post-vaccination case numbers reach record highs. That should be a pretty basic reality check on any claims that transmission is heavily affected. Either that, or you have to believe transmissibility has no impact on case numbers. What you tend to see is that studies that are older or use older data conclude more effectiveness. The New Scientist article you cite presents evidence from a study that used data only pre-Delta. But the point people are making when they say it doesn't affect transmission is about the current state of play. Not the situation back in March two major mutations ago.
- dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
  Citations are irrelevant, it's the preponderance of evidence. You can deploy as many non-sequiturs and specious arguments in service of the view you cling to, but the evidence remains the same.