3 ms·
I don't believe the narrative was ever "You will not get COVID if you get these vaccines" given the CDC's own study said it was 90% effective against SARS-COV-2
by BeefWellington 4y ago
I don't believe the narrative was ever "You will not get COVID if you get these vaccines" given the CDC's own study said it was 90% effective against SARS-COV-2 infections.[1]
Omicron and (to a lesser extent) Delta variants changed the game on transmission. They event provided the receipts in April 2021 of a study showing 90% decrease in virus transmission.
You can choose to believe this is narrative but it was backed by evidence.
The broader question about controlling misinformation is a tricky one and government pressuring social media companies into banning people isn't the ideal situation.
However, framing it as people being banned for "Any suggestion to the contrary" is at the best disingenuous. What I saw were people advocating all manner of alternative to the vaccines and spreading disinformation getting banned. A specific instance: Remember all those yarns about how people would now be sterile because of the vaccine? Well, birth rates are now back up to where they were[2] and nobody's shown to have been sterilized because of it. It's one example of just outright misinformation that deserved a ban.
This is the "fire in a crowded theatre" debate in different clothes, and it's a hard argument. If you think of this in terms of pure capitalist viewpoint, maybe instead of the government pressuring social media companies the alternative is that drug companies sue Meta et. al (and users) for defamation and libel. I'm not sure how that's a better system and wouldn't lead to the very same thing happening but it's the only alternative that seems immediately obvious.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm7013e3_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm...
[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/10/covid-pandemic-caused-birthrate-decline/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/10/covid-pan...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tohnjitor 4y agoBiden and Fauci both said that the vaccine will prevent infection.
- themitigating 4y agoCan you provide a source?
- itbeho 4y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32941155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32941155
- themitigating 4y agoI was wrong for Biden, I wouldn't expect a politican to make a absolute statement. What about Fauci?
- RichardCNormos 4y agoDon't strain your back moving that goal post.
- somenameforme 4y agoIf you'll excuse the sidetrack, I just want to hit on the "fire in a crowded theater" comment you made. It's frequently cited by people supportive of censorship, but it's quite an ironic choice once one learns the history of said quote. It was a comment quoted from Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (the same individual who also set legal precedent for state-driven eugenics with another oft referenced quote) in the case Schenck v. United States. And what was that case about? What was this "screaming fire in a crowded theater"? It was the analog that the government chose to use for being the same as them arresting people, under the Espionage Act, for the vile crime of handing out pamphlets encouraging people to resist the military draft. Shenck himself faced up to 30 years in prison. There could scarcely ever be a better argument against ever allowing the government the right to censor.