5 ms·

> Not sure what's with this "prevent" straw man, which seems to imply that vaccines need to be 100% effective, otherwise they do not work at all. They don't ne

by ls15 5y ago

> Not sure what's with this "prevent" straw man, which seems to imply that vaccines need to be 100% effective, otherwise they do not work at all. They don't need to be 100% effective, but they need to be reasonably effective in order to be mandated as a tool for mitigating the spreading. At the very least reliably above 50%, I would say. Otherwise they can only be a tool for personal risk reduction, because they don't reliably do something against the spread. An airline has no authority to mandate personal risk reduction that is not related to the flight.

mpweiher 5y ago
[flagged]
- ls15 5y ago
  > OK. So are you now retracting your previous claim that "vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2"? Why should I? It is true, because I was infected after getting vaccinated by someone who was vaccinated as well. There is a lot of data that suggests the same. > Since you previously believed that they were not effective at all, which is 100% wrong, maybe you are not the ideal person to make that judgement call? No, I didn't. Don't twist my words. I don't respond to ad hominems and after all you asked me for that answer. > Fourth, I have seen no actual evidence from you for either (a) 50% being a reasonable threshold https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-least-50-efficacy-for-covid-19-vaccines-wsj https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-leas... > or (b) vaccine efficacy being below 50%. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809356/covid-booster-omicron-efficacy?t=1644061325800 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809... > So sixth, an airline is very well within its rights to prevent potential harm from its passengers and employees. Yes, but not by mandating SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. I am sure we will see such questions being clarified in courts soon.
  - mpweiher 5y ago
    >> > OK. So are you now retracting your previous claim that "vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2"? > Why should I? Because it is false. > It is true, because I was infected after getting vaccinated by someone who was vaccinated as well. That does not make your statement true. The vaccines never prevented transmission at 100% effectiveness. Never ever. They were not marketed as doing so, and if anyone did claim they prevent transmission at 100% effectiveness, then that person was spreading misinformation. It was never true. They didn't even prevent severe outcomes at 100% effectiveness, and they were always much better at preventing severe outcomes than they were at preventing infection. (Initially >90% vs. <~ 80% against Alpha). The whole idea that one case of transmission proves the vaccines are ineffective at preventing transmission is silly. > Don't twist my words. I am not twisting your words. You were making a judgement call, which you are obviously not qualified to make. > https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-least-50-efficacy-for-covid-19-vaccines-wsj https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-leas... 1. That is a 50% efficacy in preventing the disease, i.e. the severe outcomes, not transmission. All the vaccines pass that bar easily. 2. That was the threshold for approval then. Now is now. >https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809356/covid-booster-omicron-efficacy?t=1644061325800 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809... "Two weeks after the shot, the booster cuts the risk by about 70%." Seems to be greater than 50% to me. Drops after that, but once again, it was always known that the effectiveness of the vaccine would be temporary. >> So sixth, an airline is very well within its rights to prevent potential harm from its passengers and employees. > Yes, but not by mandating SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. By saying who they allow to fly or not. You don't have to get vaccinated. United does not have to fly you. > I am sure we will see such questions being clarified in courts soon. Will probably be very short court cases...
    - ls15 5y ago
      > The whole idea that one case of transmission proves the vaccines are ineffective at preventing transmission is silly. There are many cases. Mine is just the one where I know by 100% that the vaccine was ineffective at preventing transmission. However, the CDC itself says that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines cannot prevent transmission anymore: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-vaccines-cant-prevent-transmission-anymore/ar-AASDndg https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-... CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said that Covid-19 vaccines are no longer effective at preventing transmission of the virus. "...what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission. So if you're going home to somebody who has not been vaccinated, somebody who can't get vaccinated... I would suggest you wear a mask in a public indoor setting," Misinformation? > Seems to be greater than 50% to me. Drops after that, but once again, it was always known that the effectiveness of the vaccine would be temporary. Guess which efficacy is smaller than the efficacy against symptomatic disease? I am not sure if it was always known that the efficacy was temporary. In the initial phase some scientists speculated about decades. Actually we can only now know how temporary they are after testing them on millions of people. > By saying who they allow to fly or not. You don't have to get vaccinated. United does not have to fly you. Sure anyone is free to avoid business, but if you want to put people on nationwide blocklists, then that may be illegal. >> I am sure we will see such questions being clarified in courts soon. > Will probably be very short court cases... Sure, if the pro-mandaters still don't have any good arguments and have to resort to ad hominems instead, I am sure it will be quick.

by ls15 5y ago

mpweiher 5y ago

[flagged]

ls15 5y ago
> OK. So are you now retracting your previous claim that "vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2"? Why should I? It is true, because I was infected after getting vaccinated by someone who was vaccinated as well. There is a lot of data that suggests the same. > Since you previously believed that they were not effective at all, which is 100% wrong, maybe you are not the ideal person to make that judgement call? No, I didn't. Don't twist my words. I don't respond to ad hominems and after all you asked me for that answer. > Fourth, I have seen no actual evidence from you for either (a) 50% being a reasonable threshold https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-least-50-efficacy-for-covid-19-vaccines-wsj https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-leas... > or (b) vaccine efficacy being below 50%. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809356/covid-booster-omicron-efficacy?t=1644061325800 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809... > So sixth, an airline is very well within its rights to prevent potential harm from its passengers and employees. Yes, but not by mandating SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. I am sure we will see such questions being clarified in courts soon.
- mpweiher 5y ago
  >> > OK. So are you now retracting your previous claim that "vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2"? > Why should I? Because it is false. > It is true, because I was infected after getting vaccinated by someone who was vaccinated as well. That does not make your statement true. The vaccines never prevented transmission at 100% effectiveness. Never ever. They were not marketed as doing so, and if anyone did claim they prevent transmission at 100% effectiveness, then that person was spreading misinformation. It was never true. They didn't even prevent severe outcomes at 100% effectiveness, and they were always much better at preventing severe outcomes than they were at preventing infection. (Initially >90% vs. <~ 80% against Alpha). The whole idea that one case of transmission proves the vaccines are ineffective at preventing transmission is silly. > Don't twist my words. I am not twisting your words. You were making a judgement call, which you are obviously not qualified to make. > https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-least-50-efficacy-for-covid-19-vaccines-wsj https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/fda-to-require-at-leas... 1. That is a 50% efficacy in preventing the disease, i.e. the severe outcomes, not transmission. All the vaccines pass that bar easily. 2. That was the threshold for approval then. Now is now. >https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809356/covid-booster-omicron-efficacy?t=1644061325800 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809... "Two weeks after the shot, the booster cuts the risk by about 70%." Seems to be greater than 50% to me. Drops after that, but once again, it was always known that the effectiveness of the vaccine would be temporary. >> So sixth, an airline is very well within its rights to prevent potential harm from its passengers and employees. > Yes, but not by mandating SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. By saying who they allow to fly or not. You don't have to get vaccinated. United does not have to fly you. > I am sure we will see such questions being clarified in courts soon. Will probably be very short court cases...
  - ls15 5y ago
    > The whole idea that one case of transmission proves the vaccines are ineffective at preventing transmission is silly. There are many cases. Mine is just the one where I know by 100% that the vaccine was ineffective at preventing transmission. However, the CDC itself says that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines cannot prevent transmission anymore: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-vaccines-cant-prevent-transmission-anymore/ar-AASDndg https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-... CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said that Covid-19 vaccines are no longer effective at preventing transmission of the virus. "...what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission. So if you're going home to somebody who has not been vaccinated, somebody who can't get vaccinated... I would suggest you wear a mask in a public indoor setting," Misinformation? > Seems to be greater than 50% to me. Drops after that, but once again, it was always known that the effectiveness of the vaccine would be temporary. Guess which efficacy is smaller than the efficacy against symptomatic disease? I am not sure if it was always known that the efficacy was temporary. In the initial phase some scientists speculated about decades. Actually we can only now know how temporary they are after testing them on millions of people. > By saying who they allow to fly or not. You don't have to get vaccinated. United does not have to fly you. Sure anyone is free to avoid business, but if you want to put people on nationwide blocklists, then that may be illegal. >> I am sure we will see such questions being clarified in courts soon. > Will probably be very short court cases... Sure, if the pro-mandaters still don't have any good arguments and have to resort to ad hominems instead, I am sure it will be quick.