4 ms·

Covid vaccines did do a decent job at preventing spread in the original variants, and actually even now (unless I'm mistaken, it's hard to entirely keep up) the

Covid vaccines did do a decent job at preventing spread in the original variants, and actually even now (unless I'm mistaken, it's hard to entirely keep up) the vaccines still cut the probability of you being infected at any point in time

34679 5y ago
This is false. I challenge anyone to find any statement, from any of the mRNA vaccine manufacturers, from any point in time, that claims the vaccines reduce transmission even a tiny bit.
- myko 5y ago
  https://twitter.com/JohnsHopkinsSPH/status/1481687506148118529 https://twitter.com/JohnsHopkinsSPH/status/14816875061481185... https://www.healthline.com/health-news/vaccinated-people-can-transmit-the-coronavirus-but-its-still-more-likely-if-youre-unvaccinated https://www.healthline.com/health-news/vaccinated-people-can... It is well known that vaccination helps to reduce spread. It isn't perfect, but it is better than being unvaccinated. The data is clear but you can also reason about this and feel like it is intuitively true - those that are vaccinated face better outcomes and are sick for shorter periods of time, the shorter period of time they are infected leads to them being unable to infect others for as long. It's pretty simple, really. edit: multiple studies by scientists in different countries is more reliable than marketing text from any specific manufacturer. The data is available, just read the studies mentioned in the article I linked, or research on your own.
  - 34679 5y ago
    If the vaccines reduce spread, the manufacturers would say so. I asked for such a claim from any one of them. Edit: >multiple studies by scientists in different countries is more reliable than marketing text from any specific manufacturer. I agree. The problem is, no such marketing text exists.
  - Baloo 5y ago
    Shouldn't people be isolating regardless of vaccination status, so the argument that they're sick for shorter amount of time is redundant? Why do we care about the virus spreading, it's always going to spread.. the concern should be giving the vaccine to the vulnerable that need it; the main benefit is reducing severity for them. For everyone else, its main benefit is securing revenue for the leading drug manufacturers. If I'm unvaccinated and testing negative, then what is the problem?
    - space_fountain 5y ago
      This feels a bit like moving the goal post like a few different times. This is about the claim that vaccines don't reduce spread, that appears to be false. You're reacting like this is about if people have at least a moral obligation to get vaccinated. While I do think that's true, I think it's more productive to stay strictly to the facts. Ok though if we're going to move the goal post. > Shouldn't people be isolating regardless of vaccination status, so the argument that they're sick for shorter amount of time is redundant? Maybe, but we all know that people aren't isolating every time they have cold symptoms, certainly not universally and probably not the people who aren't current vaccinated. > Why do we care about the virus spreading, it's always going to spread. That is only true now that we've given it time to become one of the most infectious viruses ever. A quick rollout of vaccines combined with a few common since interventions did (perhaps) have the potential to achieve herd immunity, but regardless the speed at which it spreads is of literally deadly importance. Overwhelming hospitals kills people (and kills people well before they are literally out of beds).
      - Baloo 5y ago
        One of the single most important things we can do to slow the spread, is isolate when we're sick or in contact with someone that tests positive. If we did this one step effectively, it would reduce infection significantly. It's something done extremely well in countries like SK, Japan, China. People who need to isolate should be sent care packages so they don't need to go out to the shop, they should update their status regularly and be given what they need to pay bills.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  A completely asymptomatic person isn’t coughing or sneezing up droplets, so there’s that.
- bantha_poodoo 5y ago
  First google result: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 If you recover quicker, cough less, it'll obviously reduce transmission.
loceng 5y ago
Citation needed; just like how I can't claim without criticism that the vaccines may have lead to Omicron and other variants - where there is evidence that vaccinated people catch certain variants more than others, and there's also building evidence that you're more likely to catch COVID if vaccinated. Edit to add [I'm rate limited from commenting further for the time being]: Look into the Great Barrington Declaration for reference to evidence for "you're more likely to catch COVID if vaccinated."
- bantha_poodoo 5y ago
- space_fountain 5y ago
  I almost didn't reply because an argument where being vaccinated makes it more likely to catch covid isn't really worth engaging in, but by the time you posted there was already a number of sources backing up my claim. For example: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 or for less scientific evidence. https://sf.gov/data/covid-19-cases-and-deaths https://sf.gov/data/covid-19-cases-and-deaths where the second set of graphs breaks case rates out by vaccination status. I think you've been taken in by a conspiracy theory. It's an easy thing to do especially when people on the other side overplay their hands sometimes, but while one can reasonable argue about the usefulness of vaccinations for reducing spread. I think it's probably more marginal, but there. The idea that vaccination increased the risks of catching covid is pretty crazy. The Great Barrington Declaration appears to have been an alternative argument for managing the pandemic released well before vaccines existed. I can't find any reference to "you're more likely to catch COVID if vaccinated." and again every element of research and common sense I have points to the opposite being true.

34679 5y ago

This is false. I challenge anyone to find any statement, from any of the mRNA vaccine manufacturers, from any point in time, that claims the vaccines reduce transmission even a tiny bit.

myko 5y ago
https://twitter.com/JohnsHopkinsSPH/status/1481687506148118529 https://twitter.com/JohnsHopkinsSPH/status/14816875061481185... https://www.healthline.com/health-news/vaccinated-people-can-transmit-the-coronavirus-but-its-still-more-likely-if-youre-unvaccinated https://www.healthline.com/health-news/vaccinated-people-can... It is well known that vaccination helps to reduce spread. It isn't perfect, but it is better than being unvaccinated. The data is clear but you can also reason about this and feel like it is intuitively true - those that are vaccinated face better outcomes and are sick for shorter periods of time, the shorter period of time they are infected leads to them being unable to infect others for as long. It's pretty simple, really. edit: multiple studies by scientists in different countries is more reliable than marketing text from any specific manufacturer. The data is available, just read the studies mentioned in the article I linked, or research on your own.
- 34679 5y ago
  If the vaccines reduce spread, the manufacturers would say so. I asked for such a claim from any one of them. Edit: >multiple studies by scientists in different countries is more reliable than marketing text from any specific manufacturer. I agree. The problem is, no such marketing text exists.
- Baloo 5y ago
  Shouldn't people be isolating regardless of vaccination status, so the argument that they're sick for shorter amount of time is redundant? Why do we care about the virus spreading, it's always going to spread.. the concern should be giving the vaccine to the vulnerable that need it; the main benefit is reducing severity for them. For everyone else, its main benefit is securing revenue for the leading drug manufacturers. If I'm unvaccinated and testing negative, then what is the problem?
  - space_fountain 5y ago
    This feels a bit like moving the goal post like a few different times. This is about the claim that vaccines don't reduce spread, that appears to be false. You're reacting like this is about if people have at least a moral obligation to get vaccinated. While I do think that's true, I think it's more productive to stay strictly to the facts. Ok though if we're going to move the goal post. > Shouldn't people be isolating regardless of vaccination status, so the argument that they're sick for shorter amount of time is redundant? Maybe, but we all know that people aren't isolating every time they have cold symptoms, certainly not universally and probably not the people who aren't current vaccinated. > Why do we care about the virus spreading, it's always going to spread. That is only true now that we've given it time to become one of the most infectious viruses ever. A quick rollout of vaccines combined with a few common since interventions did (perhaps) have the potential to achieve herd immunity, but regardless the speed at which it spreads is of literally deadly importance. Overwhelming hospitals kills people (and kills people well before they are literally out of beds).
    - Baloo 5y ago
      One of the single most important things we can do to slow the spread, is isolate when we're sick or in contact with someone that tests positive. If we did this one step effectively, it would reduce infection significantly. It's something done extremely well in countries like SK, Japan, China. People who need to isolate should be sent care packages so they don't need to go out to the shop, they should update their status regularly and be given what they need to pay bills.
thehappypm 5y ago
A completely asymptomatic person isn’t coughing or sneezing up droplets, so there’s that.
bantha_poodoo 5y ago
First google result: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 If you recover quicker, cough less, it'll obviously reduce transmission.

loceng 5y ago

Citation needed; just like how I can't claim without criticism that the vaccines may have lead to Omicron and other variants - where there is evidence that vaccinated people catch certain variants more than others, and there's also building evidence that you're more likely to catch COVID if vaccinated. Edit to add [I'm rate limited from commenting further for the time being]: Look into the Great Barrington Declaration for reference to evidence for "you're more likely to catch COVID if vaccinated."

bantha_poodoo 5y ago
space_fountain 5y ago
I almost didn't reply because an argument where being vaccinated makes it more likely to catch covid isn't really worth engaging in, but by the time you posted there was already a number of sources backing up my claim. For example: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 or for less scientific evidence. https://sf.gov/data/covid-19-cases-and-deaths https://sf.gov/data/covid-19-cases-and-deaths where the second set of graphs breaks case rates out by vaccination status. I think you've been taken in by a conspiracy theory. It's an easy thing to do especially when people on the other side overplay their hands sometimes, but while one can reasonable argue about the usefulness of vaccinations for reducing spread. I think it's probably more marginal, but there. The idea that vaccination increased the risks of catching covid is pretty crazy. The Great Barrington Declaration appears to have been an alternative argument for managing the pandemic released well before vaccines existed. I can't find any reference to "you're more likely to catch COVID if vaccinated." and again every element of research and common sense I have points to the opposite being true.