4 ms·

President Biden said you can't get COVID if you get the vaccine, implying it would stop the virus from circulating. >One last thing that’s really important is:

President Biden said you can't get COVID if you get the vaccine, implying it would stop the virus from circulating. >One last thing that’s really important is: We’re not in a position where we think that any virus — including the Delta virus, which is much more transmissible and more deadly in terms of non — unvaccinated people — the vi- — the various shots that people are getting now cover that. They’re — you’re okay. You’re not going to — you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/07/22/remarks-by-president-biden-in-a-cnn-town-hall-with-don-lemon/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...

zmmmmm 5y ago
technically, COVID is the disease and SARS-COV-2 is the virus. So the virus can circulate with only a very small fraction of people getting COVID if the vaccines are highly effective.
- JacobThreeThree 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you're technically proving, but the quote said nothing about "small fraction of people", it was categorical.
  - zmmmmm 5y ago
    refuting your statement: > you can't get COVID if you get the vaccine, implying it would stop the virus from circulating. It is entirely possibly that vaccination can leave a virus circulating while still preventing disease. Whether it does in this specific case is something you could debate, but you can't draw that implication stand alone.
    - JacobThreeThree 5y ago
      >It is entirely possibly that vaccination can leave a virus circulating while still preventing disease. Whether it does in this specific case is something you could debate But breakthrough cases of the COVID disease do occur in this specific case. What is the relevance of a hypothetical alternative scenario where breakthrough cases don't exist?
clort 5y ago
So anyway as I understand it we have a pretty technical readership here on HN. Technically, the virus is called SARS-CoV-2 and the disease is called COVID-19[1]. That does mean, technically, that due to vaccination the virus can indeed circulate but that people are not affected by the disease. Is that what Biden has said? Certainly from the excerpt you posted, that seems to be the case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...
- JacobThreeThree 5y ago
  >That does mean, technically, that due to vaccination the virus can indeed circulate but that people are not affected by the disease. Are you suggesting that breakthrough cases of COVID don't exist?
  - clort 5y ago
    I never suggested any such thing
ineedasername 5y ago
That's cherry picking a slip of the tongue: he was very clear earlier in that post that you can still get infected: >If you’re vaccinated, even if you do catch the “virus,” quote, unquote — like people talk about it in normal terms — you’re in overwhelm- — not many people do. If you do, you’re not likely to get sick. You’re probably going to be symptomless. You’re not going to be in a position where you — where your life is in danger. So you can cherry pick and attribute an absurd interpretation while ignoring everything else he said, or go for the reasonable view that he knows infection is still possible based on multiple other points in the conversation. The man isn't a great speaker, but nonetheless it's inappropriate to choose the worst possible interpretation of something when context contradicts that interpretation.
- JacobThreeThree 5y ago
  It's one example of many that could have been chosen, and needs no interpretation, his words stand on their own. The fact that there are incoherencies in his various statements is not relevant.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    >one example of many Then show me the many examples where he's said that vaccines are perfect proof against infection. Because now you're moving the goal posts as your point is refuted by context, so you expand to more vague ad hominem attack against him. The burden of evidence is on you to support that, and to do so with more than brief out of context soundbites.
    - JacobThreeThree 5y ago
      >out of context soundbites A link to the entire transcript of an event is an "out of context sondbite"? You're clearly not discussing in good faith.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        Review your comment. You link to the entire transcript yet use only a single out of context quote. You chose, from a long transcript a single out of context sound bite. My accusation stands. I was the one who pointed out that you ignored the rest of the context that contradicted you. So there you are-- posting an article, maybe failing to read it or more likely deciding to ignore most of it, and then accuse me of discussing in bad faith? That is quite brazen, accusing me of the exact thing you are doing, A poor, failed attempt at a diversionary tactic to distract from your avoidance of the question.

zmmmmm 5y ago

technically, COVID is the disease and SARS-COV-2 is the virus. So the virus can circulate with only a very small fraction of people getting COVID if the vaccines are highly effective.

JacobThreeThree 5y ago
I'm not sure what you're technically proving, but the quote said nothing about "small fraction of people", it was categorical.
- zmmmmm 5y ago
  refuting your statement: > you can't get COVID if you get the vaccine, implying it would stop the virus from circulating. It is entirely possibly that vaccination can leave a virus circulating while still preventing disease. Whether it does in this specific case is something you could debate, but you can't draw that implication stand alone.
  - JacobThreeThree 5y ago
    >It is entirely possibly that vaccination can leave a virus circulating while still preventing disease. Whether it does in this specific case is something you could debate But breakthrough cases of the COVID disease do occur in this specific case. What is the relevance of a hypothetical alternative scenario where breakthrough cases don't exist?

clort 5y ago

So anyway as I understand it we have a pretty technical readership here on HN. Technically, the virus is called SARS-CoV-2 and the disease is called COVID-19[1]. That does mean, technically, that due to vaccination the virus can indeed circulate but that people are not affected by the disease. Is that what Biden has said? Certainly from the excerpt you posted, that seems to be the case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...

JacobThreeThree 5y ago
>That does mean, technically, that due to vaccination the virus can indeed circulate but that people are not affected by the disease. Are you suggesting that breakthrough cases of COVID don't exist?
- clort 5y ago
  I never suggested any such thing

ineedasername 5y ago

That's cherry picking a slip of the tongue: he was very clear earlier in that post that you can still get infected: >If you’re vaccinated, even if you do catch the “virus,” quote, unquote — like people talk about it in normal terms — you’re in overwhelm- — not many people do. If you do, you’re not likely to get sick. You’re probably going to be symptomless. You’re not going to be in a position where you — where your life is in danger. So you can cherry pick and attribute an absurd interpretation while ignoring everything else he said, or go for the reasonable view that he knows infection is still possible based on multiple other points in the conversation. The man isn't a great speaker, but nonetheless it's inappropriate to choose the worst possible interpretation of something when context contradicts that interpretation.

JacobThreeThree 5y ago
It's one example of many that could have been chosen, and needs no interpretation, his words stand on their own. The fact that there are incoherencies in his various statements is not relevant.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  >one example of many Then show me the many examples where he's said that vaccines are perfect proof against infection. Because now you're moving the goal posts as your point is refuted by context, so you expand to more vague ad hominem attack against him. The burden of evidence is on you to support that, and to do so with more than brief out of context soundbites.
  - JacobThreeThree 5y ago
    >out of context soundbites A link to the entire transcript of an event is an "out of context sondbite"? You're clearly not discussing in good faith.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      Review your comment. You link to the entire transcript yet use only a single out of context quote. You chose, from a long transcript a single out of context sound bite. My accusation stands. I was the one who pointed out that you ignored the rest of the context that contradicted you. So there you are-- posting an article, maybe failing to read it or more likely deciding to ignore most of it, and then accuse me of discussing in bad faith? That is quite brazen, accusing me of the exact thing you are doing, A poor, failed attempt at a diversionary tactic to distract from your avoidance of the question.