4 ms·

What is it with people categorising others as “anti” this or “pro” that? He had a bad experience with this particular vaccine and for this very justifiable reas

What is it with people categorising others as “anti” this or “pro” that? He had a bad experience with this particular vaccine and for this very justifiable reason is skeptical about them. What this reflects is the tribalist nature people like yourself have subscribed to. And to be honest its a valid assessment because who would've thought we would need a 4th booster as Israel has done?

dpark 5y ago
He has every reason to be upset about having a very rare complication. At the point that you start casting the CDC as nefarious actors for clarifying the definition of “vaccination”, though, you’re just spreading FUD. If there was some substance to the criticism, it would be a different thing. But there is no substance to the criticism. No vaccine has ever given 100% immunity to everyone who got it. Nothing changed. It’s also inaccurate to claim that the vaccine does nothing to prevent infection. Breakthrough infections are certainly happening but unvaccinated are getting infected at a higher rate. (Plus the risk of severe infection.) This narrative that they’re sneaking around changing definitions to trick people is absurd. They made the change publicly. The data used to make decisions around COVID is public. These aren’t back room secret deals. It’s public health policy being endlessly debated in public. > And to be honest its a valid assessment because who would've thought we would need a 4th booster as Israel has done? A ton of people expected this. People were talking about likely needing yearly boosters before the vaccines were even available. Maybe every 6 months is sooner than expected but boosters were totally predicted.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  > No vaccine has ever given 100% immunity to everyone who got it. 100% wasn't stated by me as a target, the really interesting part is the shift of the target from "you dont get it" to "you wont be hospitalized" ... elsewhere in this I posted about some of my readings about MMR vaccines, they confer something like a 9x decrease in infections (at all, again not just hospitalizations) . 2 doses/boosters is fine, even multiple years apart... Breakouts happen (with MMR) etc. But IMO the term "vaccine" meaning like the MMR vaccine, is not the same when applied to covid -- hence why I said "immumotherapy" seems more apt. > This narrative that they’re sneaking around changing definitions to trick people is absurd. They made the change publicly. The data used to make decisions around COVID is public. These aren’t back room secret deals. It’s public health policy being endlessly debated in public. I agree this is a good and valid point, part of the issue is messaging. Why is this redefinition not making news, and widespread announcement? I was getting texts to stay home, there were mailings and mandates about masks... Social media ads saying what the CDC is doing and why would be quite helpful to combat FUD... anyways I digress...
  - dpark 5y ago
    I replied elsewhere about the meaning of “vaccine” (we’ve called the flu vaccine a vaccine for many years, with only ~50% typical effectiveness). As for the messaging: 1) I would bet all of my money that at least 95% of the people complaining about the CDC updating their definition had never once read the previous definition until they read some article trying to cast the CDCs actions in a nefarious light. It’s not clear to me why this redefinition is worthy of a news story at all. 2) I am very doubtful that the CDC engaging as you’ve described would help anything. Their detractors would absolutely call it propaganda.
    - maerF0x0 5y ago
      just wanted to upvote you for adding the edit about immunotherapy could also mean decreasing the immune system. I'm not certain of the best word, still don't feel "vaccine" is it.
      - dpark 5y ago
        I actually skimmed over that at first and then came back (hence the edit). My son is on immunotherapy to reduce allergic reactions. I’m quite happy to have his immune system stop working so hard to fight eggs and nuts. :)

dpark 5y ago

He has every reason to be upset about having a very rare complication. At the point that you start casting the CDC as nefarious actors for clarifying the definition of “vaccination”, though, you’re just spreading FUD. If there was some substance to the criticism, it would be a different thing. But there is no substance to the criticism. No vaccine has ever given 100% immunity to everyone who got it. Nothing changed. It’s also inaccurate to claim that the vaccine does nothing to prevent infection. Breakthrough infections are certainly happening but unvaccinated are getting infected at a higher rate. (Plus the risk of severe infection.) This narrative that they’re sneaking around changing definitions to trick people is absurd. They made the change publicly. The data used to make decisions around COVID is public. These aren’t back room secret deals. It’s public health policy being endlessly debated in public. > And to be honest its a valid assessment because who would've thought we would need a 4th booster as Israel has done? A ton of people expected this. People were talking about likely needing yearly boosters before the vaccines were even available. Maybe every 6 months is sooner than expected but boosters were totally predicted.

maerF0x0 5y ago
> No vaccine has ever given 100% immunity to everyone who got it. 100% wasn't stated by me as a target, the really interesting part is the shift of the target from "you dont get it" to "you wont be hospitalized" ... elsewhere in this I posted about some of my readings about MMR vaccines, they confer something like a 9x decrease in infections (at all, again not just hospitalizations) . 2 doses/boosters is fine, even multiple years apart... Breakouts happen (with MMR) etc. But IMO the term "vaccine" meaning like the MMR vaccine, is not the same when applied to covid -- hence why I said "immumotherapy" seems more apt. > This narrative that they’re sneaking around changing definitions to trick people is absurd. They made the change publicly. The data used to make decisions around COVID is public. These aren’t back room secret deals. It’s public health policy being endlessly debated in public. I agree this is a good and valid point, part of the issue is messaging. Why is this redefinition not making news, and widespread announcement? I was getting texts to stay home, there were mailings and mandates about masks... Social media ads saying what the CDC is doing and why would be quite helpful to combat FUD... anyways I digress...
- dpark 5y ago
  I replied elsewhere about the meaning of “vaccine” (we’ve called the flu vaccine a vaccine for many years, with only ~50% typical effectiveness). As for the messaging: 1) I would bet all of my money that at least 95% of the people complaining about the CDC updating their definition had never once read the previous definition until they read some article trying to cast the CDCs actions in a nefarious light. It’s not clear to me why this redefinition is worthy of a news story at all. 2) I am very doubtful that the CDC engaging as you’ve described would help anything. Their detractors would absolutely call it propaganda.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    just wanted to upvote you for adding the edit about immunotherapy could also mean decreasing the immune system. I'm not certain of the best word, still don't feel "vaccine" is it.
    - dpark 5y ago
      I actually skimmed over that at first and then came back (hence the edit). My son is on immunotherapy to reduce allergic reactions. I’m quite happy to have his immune system stop working so hard to fight eggs and nuts. :)