5 ms·

No official body has ever said "you will not get covid if you get the vaccine". Even the earliest trial results said "you will not be hospitalized or die if you

No official body has ever said "you will not get covid if you get the vaccine". Even the earliest trial results said "you will not be hospitalized or die if you get the vaccine", not that you won't get covid. And at the time, that was true because we were dealing with the original strain. Nothing else you said is untrue either. The vaccine drastically reduced the spread of the virus. I'm not sure what you're getting at besides spreading more disinformation. edit: i've replied several times below but everyone needs to keep in mind WHEN things were said. When the CDC said you wouldn't catch the virus in early 2021 - they were basically fully accurate because we were dealing with the original strain. Delta did not exist yet. The original vaccines were INCREDIBLY effective against the original strain - beyond anyone's wildest expectations. 100% effectiveness against death and severe hospitalization. 95% effectiveness against symptoms entirely. These levels of protection were amazing. Yes, things changed when Delta arrived, and even moreso with omicron and future subvariants, but you can't go back with hindsight and discredit what was said _at the time_.

robhunter 4y ago
The president of the United States literally said "You're not going to get Covid if you've had these vaccinations" - https://youtu.be/VArXfQU--LA?t=21 https://youtu.be/VArXfQU--LA?t=21 It's likely the vaccines reduced the spread of the virus temporarily, but it certainly wasn't very long-lasting. The efficacy waned quickly, even against the original strains/Alpha/Delta - take a look at case rates in Israel (first heavily vaccinated country) through mid-late 2021 (before Omicron).
- Terretta 4y ago
  As was known before Americans took them: 90 - 180 days useful efficacy tops. That’s why the first vax card already had a half dozen lines to record doses.
  - jmaygarden 4y ago
    I definitely did NOT know that when the vaccinations were first rolled out. Do you have a source?
- etchalon 4y ago
  And as this is the first time any politician has engaged in hyperbole, or been made incorrect by changing information, the American public was rightfully shocked.
  - apostacy 4y ago
    Except that created a narrative that the pandemic was above politics, and was only about public health and "the science". But that is clearly not the case.
- sovnade 4y ago
  Remember Delta wasn't even around until late summer. Biden's speech was barely an exaggeration at the time when we were dealing with the original strain. Was it 100% effective at preventing all infection entirely? No. It was 100% effective in preventing severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death, and was 95% effective in preventing symptoms entirely. 95% reduction in infection and 100% reduction in death is close enough to round up for a non-technical speech.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    - sovnade 4y ago
      It started to wane slightly after 2 months. It was still nearly 100% effective at that point. It was still highly effective at 6 months (85%+), which is when a booster would return it to full effectiveness.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
      - throwaway234223 4y ago
        I'm in agreement if you are ignoring delta [1]. [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2113090 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2113090
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > It was 100% effective in preventing severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death Do you have a source for this? It sounds completely implausible.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    So it was outright lie. Pure evil to spread that sort of pseudo-science.
ekianjo 4y ago
Wrong on all accounts. The early communication about the vaccine was all about preventing infections. You are trying to rewrite History. Back in 2020, press release from Pfizer: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... > "Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose;170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics; observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%"
- etchalon 4y ago
  What you're showing is that the early data showed a high degree of efficacy against an earlier variant. And 95% isn't 100%.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    Even with the earlier variants the actual clinical data on the market never achieved 95%. Pure hyperbole and Pfizer has still not shared the actual raw data of the trials.
- sovnade 4y ago
  It was extremely effective against preventing infection (and transmission). The press release you posted said as much. But everything I heard at the time was that it was 100% effective at preventing severe infections (including hospitalizations and death), and that you were much, much less likely to have symptoms at all should you contract it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hanklazard 4y ago
The parent is not “spreading more disinformation”, as I see it. The comment just gives the opinion that the public is less than optimistic about vaccines after a challenging and rapidly changing public health campaign. I can tell you as a primary care doctor in a highly blue area of the country, I pretty much agree with the assessment—we are seeing very little interest these days, as much as we are trying to offer.
yucky 4y ago
The CDC literally rewrote the definition of "vaccine" on their website to fit the new reality.[1] Sorry, the trust is long gone and never coming back. [1] https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/emails-confirm-why-cdc-changed-definitions-vaccine-vaccinated https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/emails-confirm-why-cdc-ch...
- sovnade 4y ago
  And now it's more accurate - there's plenty of vaccines out there previously that weren't 100% effective, so there's no reason to have the absolute language out there. The measles vaccine is only 97% effective after 2 doses - so that wouldn't have met the old definition either. edit: sorry i'm rereading your post and I'm not even sure what your issue is with the current definition
  - yucky 4y ago
    >sorry i'm rereading your post and I'm not even sure what your issue is with the current definition Really? So the definition the CDC used for years to describe vaccines had to be changed, since by their own definition the COVID vaccine wasn't actually a vaccine. And the best part is they didn't even announce & explain the change, they just stealthily modified it on their website. And you don't understand why so many people think secretly redefining a very important word after the fact to change the meaning is shady? Especially considering government mandates put millions of people in a very uncomfortable spot with employment - you don't see why that would lead to mistrust? OK. I'm not sure we'll be able to square this circle then.
    - sovnade 4y ago
      Yes - in science, definitions change all the time. We redefined what a planet was and booted Pluto out of the group. Which part of the new definition do you disagree with as being a valid definition for a modern vaccine? And what difference does it make functionally? The covid vaccines were a product that gave you protection against a disease. Everyone knows that's what a vaccine is. I don't see why it matters what the definition on the site was to begin with.
apvieira 4y ago
What about the CDC saying that "vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick"? https://youtu.be/uKf8dVxOy0s https://youtu.be/uKf8dVxOy0s
- sovnade 4y ago
  And this was mostly true from the original strain back in early 2021. The vaccine reduced the ability to contract and spread the virus dramatically. The chances of contracting and spreading the original strain, if you were fully vaccinated, was close enough to zero to say it basically wasn't happening. Delta obviously changed that, and omicron has changed it much more.
  - apvieira 4y ago
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    >And this was mostly true Always coming back with the weasel words after lies. This is why the one side can not be trusted at all. They always lie and distort the truth.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    You would think the Centers for Disease Control might predict this coronavirus like all other coronaviruses would rapidly mutate. This is the worst kind of data driven exercise where field knowledgeable people apparently pretend that the history of their field does not exist. Experts are clearly being siloed and gagged. I'd even bet Fauci is being told what to say, against his own judgement, but his position gags him. Any true scientist would be twisted into knots protecting their statements with caveats, but what does the public hear? Confidence!

robhunter 4y ago

The president of the United States literally said "You're not going to get Covid if you've had these vaccinations" - https://youtu.be/VArXfQU--LA?t=21 https://youtu.be/VArXfQU--LA?t=21 It's likely the vaccines reduced the spread of the virus temporarily, but it certainly wasn't very long-lasting. The efficacy waned quickly, even against the original strains/Alpha/Delta - take a look at case rates in Israel (first heavily vaccinated country) through mid-late 2021 (before Omicron).

Terretta 4y ago
As was known before Americans took them: 90 - 180 days useful efficacy tops. That’s why the first vax card already had a half dozen lines to record doses.
- jmaygarden 4y ago
  I definitely did NOT know that when the vaccinations were first rolled out. Do you have a source?
etchalon 4y ago
And as this is the first time any politician has engaged in hyperbole, or been made incorrect by changing information, the American public was rightfully shocked.
- apostacy 4y ago
  Except that created a narrative that the pandemic was above politics, and was only about public health and "the science". But that is clearly not the case.
sovnade 4y ago
Remember Delta wasn't even around until late summer. Biden's speech was barely an exaggeration at the time when we were dealing with the original strain. Was it 100% effective at preventing all infection entirely? No. It was 100% effective in preventing severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death, and was 95% effective in preventing symptoms entirely. 95% reduction in infection and 100% reduction in death is close enough to round up for a non-technical speech.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  - sovnade 4y ago
    It started to wane slightly after 2 months. It was still nearly 100% effective at that point. It was still highly effective at 6 months (85%+), which is when a booster would return it to full effectiveness.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
    - throwaway234223 4y ago
      I'm in agreement if you are ignoring delta [1]. [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2113090 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2113090
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > It was 100% effective in preventing severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death Do you have a source for this? It sounds completely implausible.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  So it was outright lie. Pure evil to spread that sort of pseudo-science.

ekianjo 4y ago

Wrong on all accounts. The early communication about the vaccine was all about preventing infections. You are trying to rewrite History. Back in 2020, press release from Pfizer: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... > "Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose;170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics; observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%"

etchalon 4y ago
What you're showing is that the early data showed a high degree of efficacy against an earlier variant. And 95% isn't 100%.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  Even with the earlier variants the actual clinical data on the market never achieved 95%. Pure hyperbole and Pfizer has still not shared the actual raw data of the trials.
sovnade 4y ago
It was extremely effective against preventing infection (and transmission). The press release you posted said as much. But everything I heard at the time was that it was 100% effective at preventing severe infections (including hospitalizations and death), and that you were much, much less likely to have symptoms at all should you contract it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hanklazard 4y ago

The parent is not “spreading more disinformation”, as I see it. The comment just gives the opinion that the public is less than optimistic about vaccines after a challenging and rapidly changing public health campaign. I can tell you as a primary care doctor in a highly blue area of the country, I pretty much agree with the assessment—we are seeing very little interest these days, as much as we are trying to offer.

yucky 4y ago

The CDC literally rewrote the definition of "vaccine" on their website to fit the new reality.[1] Sorry, the trust is long gone and never coming back. [1] https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/emails-confirm-why-cdc-changed-definitions-vaccine-vaccinated https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/emails-confirm-why-cdc-ch...

sovnade 4y ago
And now it's more accurate - there's plenty of vaccines out there previously that weren't 100% effective, so there's no reason to have the absolute language out there. The measles vaccine is only 97% effective after 2 doses - so that wouldn't have met the old definition either. edit: sorry i'm rereading your post and I'm not even sure what your issue is with the current definition
- yucky 4y ago
  >sorry i'm rereading your post and I'm not even sure what your issue is with the current definition Really? So the definition the CDC used for years to describe vaccines had to be changed, since by their own definition the COVID vaccine wasn't actually a vaccine. And the best part is they didn't even announce & explain the change, they just stealthily modified it on their website. And you don't understand why so many people think secretly redefining a very important word after the fact to change the meaning is shady? Especially considering government mandates put millions of people in a very uncomfortable spot with employment - you don't see why that would lead to mistrust? OK. I'm not sure we'll be able to square this circle then.
  - sovnade 4y ago
    Yes - in science, definitions change all the time. We redefined what a planet was and booted Pluto out of the group. Which part of the new definition do you disagree with as being a valid definition for a modern vaccine? And what difference does it make functionally? The covid vaccines were a product that gave you protection against a disease. Everyone knows that's what a vaccine is. I don't see why it matters what the definition on the site was to begin with.

apvieira 4y ago

What about the CDC saying that "vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick"? https://youtu.be/uKf8dVxOy0s https://youtu.be/uKf8dVxOy0s

sovnade 4y ago
And this was mostly true from the original strain back in early 2021. The vaccine reduced the ability to contract and spread the virus dramatically. The chances of contracting and spreading the original strain, if you were fully vaccinated, was close enough to zero to say it basically wasn't happening. Delta obviously changed that, and omicron has changed it much more.
- apvieira 4y ago
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
- Ekaros 4y ago
  >And this was mostly true Always coming back with the weasel words after lies. This is why the one side can not be trusted at all. They always lie and distort the truth.
- peteradio 4y ago
  You would think the Centers for Disease Control might predict this coronavirus like all other coronaviruses would rapidly mutate. This is the worst kind of data driven exercise where field knowledgeable people apparently pretend that the history of their field does not exist. Experts are clearly being siloed and gagged. I'd even bet Fauci is being told what to say, against his own judgement, but his position gags him. Any true scientist would be twisted into knots protecting their statements with caveats, but what does the public hear? Confidence!