7 ms·

Nothing changed. Of course the aim of vaccination campaigns is to reduce harm. What a bizarre strawman argument. Protecting the health care system was always e

Nothing changed. Of course the aim of vaccination campaigns is to reduce harm. What a bizarre strawman argument. Protecting the health care system was always express goal.

prohobo 5y ago
Not even true in the frame you're attempting to talk about it: the vaccines were touted to stop transmission up until August 2021 or so, when people realized they didn't and started backsliding into touting the protection of the healthcare system. Also, what a bizarre sidestep of the actual issue being talked about: vaccine passes.
- caoilte 5y ago
  Reduce transmission. Nobody serious ever said they would stop transmissions because they were found not to during their testing last year.
  - prohobo 5y ago
    Stop lying. We can't solve any problems if you keep denying reality. - Up until mid-2021 people still thought "transmission was exceptionally rare" in vaccinated individuals: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/yes-vaccines-block-most-transmission-of-covid-19 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/yes-vacci... - Biden said it would stop transmissions: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-if-vaccinated-wont-get-covid/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-if-vaccinated-wont-g... - Fauci said it would stop transmissions: https://web.archive.org/web/20210604093134/https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/90445 https://web.archive.org/web/20210604093134/https://www.medpa... This is late stage narrative from 2021. In 2020 they were still questioning whether "breakthrough infections" were real. The narrative shifts over time, but if you know how to use a search engine you'll see it clear as day.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Delta and Omicron changed things a bit, didn't they? As you argueing against vacvine mandates, lock downs, vaccine passports and geberal restrictions, what would be your counter proposal? No restrictions and let the Pandemic run its natural course? We all sae how that would look like in Italy, Spain, Brazil, New York...
      - refurb 5y ago
        I love how to goal posts keep moving. “Oh, the vaccine would have stop transmission but Delta came along”. Bullshit.
        hef19898 5y ago
        I didn't say that vaccines were supposed to transmission pre-Delta, did I? Just that overall vaccines were, and are, more effective against Alpha and whatnot. And even then it wasn't really expected to stop transmissions to 100%. Still the question remains to be answered: What are our alternatives, assuming we don't want overloaded health systems? Because just doing nothing wpuld be disaster.
    - hugh-avherald 5y ago
      I'm appalled by Biden's careless statement. But I can't find the Fauci quote in that article (likely hampered by pop-ups). I do agree that authorities have been pretty reckless in their promises.
      - prohobo 5y ago
        I updated the link to an archived version. Fauci and the CDC were a little more careful, but they insinuated effectively the same thing with vaccination induced herd immunity. Of course, we now know the vaccines do nothing for herd immunity, and it seems only infection actually does anything in this regard. I don't have the time to dig up everything every time I need to make an argument, and I wish there was a proper repository of information for this stuff - and that again, is a failing of the government.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Do you have a source? The big clinical trials all tested risk of hospitalization and risk of death. The original Pfizer and Moderna trials did not test risk of infection or transmission. Participants weren’t even tested unless symptomatic.
- maeil 5y ago
  The end goal of any measure, including vaccine passes, has always been the same: preventing a large number of deaths. Vacccines still prevent a large number of deaths, both directly (strongly reduced risk of death from Covid) and indirectly (reduced strain on the healthcare system). These hold true even if vaccines only effect outcomes after getting Covid and have zero effect on transmission rates at all, they're not up for discussion. As such there really isn't much of an ethical dillema here. There is plenty of data available on all of these points. Whether someone somewhere incorrectly touted vaccines as stopping transmission at any point isn't worth discussion, it's just another one to add to the list of "uninformed statements made about vaccines" which is billions of lines long at this point.
  - prohobo 5y ago
    If we're being charitable, the end goal of vaccine passes is to "nudge" people into getting the vaccine.
    - usrusr 5y ago
      The goal of vaccine passes is to allow business to open for some that would not be allowed to open for anyone otherwise. The nudge is merely a minor but welcome side-effect.
      - tomp 5y ago
        This cannot be true. The same goal could trivially be achieved simply by not forcing the businesses to close in the first place.
        usrusr 5y ago
        That's what you believe, but GP was talking about intent and for that only the thoughts of the people doing all the "intending" count. People that believe that not closing is a good idea are usually not the ones proposing vaccination pass schemes (but some of them might still gladly accept them as a compromise)
- cedilla 5y ago
  Of course vaccines are about harm reduction. How can that be "not true" in any frame? What is even the logical alternative? Are we trying to reduce the infection count because smaller numbers are aesthetically more pleasing? I'm not sidestepping the issue. There is no difficult ethical dilemma here, and nothing changed with the new variant. If there was a mistake regarding the vaccines, it was to discuss vaccination as optional opposed to the clear ethical obligation that it is. Just like no one is entitled to store unstable explosives in candlelight in a shed next to their neighbour's house.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  Vaccines did stop transmission before delta. That's why many countries weren't big on vaccine passes, we just needed to get higher than the herd immunity threshold and it was fine, a few antivax wouldn't have changed the equation that much. Now, herd immunity is just a dream, we can't count on the vaccinated to protect the unvaccinated anymore. So, plan B, and as it turns out, the key of plan B is also vaccines, but now we need 100% vaccinated, not 60%, so, vaccine passes. Maybe it will change if we get better treatment, or if the virus mutates to be less lethal to those with no immunity. But for now, get vaccinated or stay at home.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  This is the issue with discussions like this. Arguments about any medical intervention is always about statistics, there are essentially no 100% measures, but you and others always frame this as either or questions that's either completely naive or dishonest. So yes vaccination was also stopping the spread, but nobody thought it would 100% prevent a vaccinated person from getting infected. However it does significantly reduce infection rates and severity of the illness. The hope/assumption was that if sufficient people get vaccinated and the infection rate for vaccinated people drops enough it will stop spreading of covid. AFAIK It's unclear yet if that we haven't stopped the spread is due to insufficient vaccination rates or insufficient drop of infection rates for vaccinated people. This analysis is further complicated by the advent of new variants like omikron.
  - refurb 5y ago
    No, no it doesn’t. Google search the lancet study. It found infection in vaccinated produced similar viral loads as unvaccinated AND easily infected other vaccinated. It might reduce the risk of transmission, but only a negligible amount.
lancebeet 5y ago
I'm not arguing it's wrong, just that it's a more difficult ethical question. During the past year, I've seen many ads from the authorities here to get vaccinated to protect others from being infected by you, so I disagree with the notion that preventing the spread wasn't a goal in itself, but I realize that this may be different depending on where you live. I consider myself to have a moral obligation to get vaccinated to reduce my own burden on the health care system, but forcing others to do it is a different story. Surely you must agree that requiring people to take a vaccine just to enter a store is a severe measure that should only be undertaken if it's absolutely necessary?

Nothing changed. Of course the aim of vaccination campaigns is to reduce harm. What a bizarre strawman argument. Protecting the health care system was always express goal.

prohobo 5y ago

Not even true in the frame you're attempting to talk about it: the vaccines were touted to stop transmission up until August 2021 or so, when people realized they didn't and started backsliding into touting the protection of the healthcare system. Also, what a bizarre sidestep of the actual issue being talked about: vaccine passes.

caoilte 5y ago
Reduce transmission. Nobody serious ever said they would stop transmissions because they were found not to during their testing last year.
- prohobo 5y ago
  Stop lying. We can't solve any problems if you keep denying reality. - Up until mid-2021 people still thought "transmission was exceptionally rare" in vaccinated individuals: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/yes-vaccines-block-most-transmission-of-covid-19 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/yes-vacci... - Biden said it would stop transmissions: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-if-vaccinated-wont-get-covid/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-if-vaccinated-wont-g... - Fauci said it would stop transmissions: https://web.archive.org/web/20210604093134/https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/90445 https://web.archive.org/web/20210604093134/https://www.medpa... This is late stage narrative from 2021. In 2020 they were still questioning whether "breakthrough infections" were real. The narrative shifts over time, but if you know how to use a search engine you'll see it clear as day.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Delta and Omicron changed things a bit, didn't they? As you argueing against vacvine mandates, lock downs, vaccine passports and geberal restrictions, what would be your counter proposal? No restrictions and let the Pandemic run its natural course? We all sae how that would look like in Italy, Spain, Brazil, New York...
    - refurb 5y ago
      I love how to goal posts keep moving. “Oh, the vaccine would have stop transmission but Delta came along”. Bullshit.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        I didn't say that vaccines were supposed to transmission pre-Delta, did I? Just that overall vaccines were, and are, more effective against Alpha and whatnot. And even then it wasn't really expected to stop transmissions to 100%. Still the question remains to be answered: What are our alternatives, assuming we don't want overloaded health systems? Because just doing nothing wpuld be disaster.
  - hugh-avherald 5y ago
    I'm appalled by Biden's careless statement. But I can't find the Fauci quote in that article (likely hampered by pop-ups). I do agree that authorities have been pretty reckless in their promises.
    - prohobo 5y ago
      I updated the link to an archived version. Fauci and the CDC were a little more careful, but they insinuated effectively the same thing with vaccination induced herd immunity. Of course, we now know the vaccines do nothing for herd immunity, and it seems only infection actually does anything in this regard. I don't have the time to dig up everything every time I need to make an argument, and I wish there was a proper repository of information for this stuff - and that again, is a failing of the government.
- refurb 5y ago
  Do you have a source? The big clinical trials all tested risk of hospitalization and risk of death. The original Pfizer and Moderna trials did not test risk of infection or transmission. Participants weren’t even tested unless symptomatic.
maeil 5y ago
The end goal of any measure, including vaccine passes, has always been the same: preventing a large number of deaths. Vacccines still prevent a large number of deaths, both directly (strongly reduced risk of death from Covid) and indirectly (reduced strain on the healthcare system). These hold true even if vaccines only effect outcomes after getting Covid and have zero effect on transmission rates at all, they're not up for discussion. As such there really isn't much of an ethical dillema here. There is plenty of data available on all of these points. Whether someone somewhere incorrectly touted vaccines as stopping transmission at any point isn't worth discussion, it's just another one to add to the list of "uninformed statements made about vaccines" which is billions of lines long at this point.
- prohobo 5y ago
  If we're being charitable, the end goal of vaccine passes is to "nudge" people into getting the vaccine.
  - usrusr 5y ago
    The goal of vaccine passes is to allow business to open for some that would not be allowed to open for anyone otherwise. The nudge is merely a minor but welcome side-effect.
    - tomp 5y ago
      This cannot be true. The same goal could trivially be achieved simply by not forcing the businesses to close in the first place.
      - usrusr 5y ago
        That's what you believe, but GP was talking about intent and for that only the thoughts of the people doing all the "intending" count. People that believe that not closing is a good idea are usually not the ones proposing vaccination pass schemes (but some of them might still gladly accept them as a compromise)
cedilla 5y ago
Of course vaccines are about harm reduction. How can that be "not true" in any frame? What is even the logical alternative? Are we trying to reduce the infection count because smaller numbers are aesthetically more pleasing? I'm not sidestepping the issue. There is no difficult ethical dilemma here, and nothing changed with the new variant. If there was a mistake regarding the vaccines, it was to discuss vaccination as optional opposed to the clear ethical obligation that it is. Just like no one is entitled to store unstable explosives in candlelight in a shed next to their neighbour's house.
GuB-42 5y ago
Vaccines did stop transmission before delta. That's why many countries weren't big on vaccine passes, we just needed to get higher than the herd immunity threshold and it was fine, a few antivax wouldn't have changed the equation that much. Now, herd immunity is just a dream, we can't count on the vaccinated to protect the unvaccinated anymore. So, plan B, and as it turns out, the key of plan B is also vaccines, but now we need 100% vaccinated, not 60%, so, vaccine passes. Maybe it will change if we get better treatment, or if the virus mutates to be less lethal to those with no immunity. But for now, get vaccinated or stay at home.
cycomanic 5y ago
This is the issue with discussions like this. Arguments about any medical intervention is always about statistics, there are essentially no 100% measures, but you and others always frame this as either or questions that's either completely naive or dishonest. So yes vaccination was also stopping the spread, but nobody thought it would 100% prevent a vaccinated person from getting infected. However it does significantly reduce infection rates and severity of the illness. The hope/assumption was that if sufficient people get vaccinated and the infection rate for vaccinated people drops enough it will stop spreading of covid. AFAIK It's unclear yet if that we haven't stopped the spread is due to insufficient vaccination rates or insufficient drop of infection rates for vaccinated people. This analysis is further complicated by the advent of new variants like omikron.
- refurb 5y ago
  No, no it doesn’t. Google search the lancet study. It found infection in vaccinated produced similar viral loads as unvaccinated AND easily infected other vaccinated. It might reduce the risk of transmission, but only a negligible amount.

lancebeet 5y ago

I'm not arguing it's wrong, just that it's a more difficult ethical question. During the past year, I've seen many ads from the authorities here to get vaccinated to protect others from being infected by you, so I disagree with the notion that preventing the spread wasn't a goal in itself, but I realize that this may be different depending on where you live. I consider myself to have a moral obligation to get vaccinated to reduce my own burden on the health care system, but forcing others to do it is a different story. Surely you must agree that requiring people to take a vaccine just to enter a store is a severe measure that should only be undertaken if it's absolutely necessary?