3 ms·

The expectation was that because they knew the vaccines reduce the chances of getting symptoms such as coughs associated with transmission, reduced the time peo

by simonh 4y ago

The expectation was that because they knew the vaccines reduce the chances of getting symptoms such as coughs associated with transmission, reduced the time people were sick for, and also reduce the viral load in people who got sick, that this would result in a reduced chance that people who caught the virus but were vaccinated would transmit the virus. It was an expectation, yes, not a proven fact but they thought it was worth working on that assumption due to the hoped for benefits. It turns out now, after extensive research on transmission by vaccinated people, that they were correct and vaccination does significantly slow transmission through populations even for the more recent highly infectious variants. >I’m increasingly understanding why some folks are “paranoid.” I really don't, all of this information has been available all the way through. That Pfizer executive was simply being honest, what the vaccines do and how they work and the benefits they offer has been accurately communicated right back from the trials phases. I know this because all through those times I kept myself well informed and followed the literature. It helps that my wife is a Nurse, and also that I'm in the UK where the whole issue was far, far less politicised and the accuracy and consistency of information from the media was actually pretty good. The problem is there was an awful lot of disinformation going around in the US from people either getting partial information and making wild unfounded assumptions, or deliberately fomenting opposition to various policies on political grounds. Nevertheless as I said in my previous post, we're all adults. It's our responsibility to inform ourselves, we can't blame disinformation, some of which is genuinely simply mistaken.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
I don’t dispute that either - it make sense. However, does it not scare you… that it is a fact now, but was not a fact back then, despite being widely preached as a fact back then, and nobody was permitted to counter this “fact” back then and admit it was not so? That’s the uncomfortable part.
- simonh 4y ago
  No it doesn't scare me, they did the right thing and they had I think very strong reasons for doing so. They knew that the policy was safe because the risks of the vaccines evaluated in trials were very low, and they had many very good reasons based on experience from other infectious diseases as to what the outcome would be. They were in a situation where thousands, at times tens of thousands of people were dying every day. If you know a policy is very safe (not perfectly safe, not completely risk free, but known to be very low risk), and you know that the highly likely benefits are very high and are expected to save many many thousands of lives, why should I be scared of them implementing it? Genuinely, I just don't understand that attitude at all. It makes no sense to me. You look at the evidence and the risks and you make a decision. In this case I think it was a very easy one and huge numbers of people all over the world are alive now because of it. Meanwhile a lot of people are dead because they believed partial, misrepresented or incorrect information about the vaccines. Doesn't it scare you that people were spreading so much disinformation that was responsible for so many deaths? That excessive skepticism and distrust, based on simple lack of careful evaluation of widely available facts, was so incredibly destructive?
mistermann 4y ago
> It was an expectation, yes, not a proven fact... I wonder if they wonder if substantially (the memeplex is...complex) describing it otherwise was to their advantage, in retrospect.
- simonh 4y ago
  Who's "they"? It was to our advantage because it saved a lot of lives, and it was to the advantage of the public health services promoting the policy because it reduced demand on health services (and saved lives).
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Who's "they"? Tautologically, and objectively: those who said such things (intentionally or otherwise, and (from a causality perspective, which is contrary to the far more popular "justified" perspective) it is also subject to imperfect perception on the other end of the wire, if one is able to be comfortable with being extremely "scientific"). This is kinda what I was getting at by "the memeplex is...complex". > It was to our advantage because it saved a lot of lives, and it was to the advantage of the public health services promoting the policy because it reduced demand on health services (and saved lives). I do not substantially disagree. However, it may also be to our advantage to consider (or at least, try to consider) whether the degree to which we do such things is highly optimal in an absolute sense. Unfortunately, Western culture seems to have somehow ended up in a situation where speculative, and relative, representations of reality are considered (and taught, constantly) to be synonymous with reality itself....and, there is no shortage of thought terminating memes out there to keep us permanently at this stage (perhaps some of them will even emerge in response to this comment). Pardon if this is a bit excessively negative/pessimistic, but I am losing patience with the state of affairs on this planet. I gave you an upvote as a counterbalance, for what that's worth.
JacobThreeThree 4y ago
>that this would result in a reduced chance that people who caught the virus but were vaccinated would transmit the virus Shouldn't they have at least tried to study this if that was the expectation?
- simonh 4y ago
  They did, studies started almost immediately. It just took more time for the results to come out because transmission trials are much more fiddly and time consuming to do.
Izkata 4y ago
> The expectation was that because they knew the vaccines reduce the chances of getting symptoms such as coughs associated with transmission, reduced the time people were sick for, and also reduce the viral load in people who got sick This assumption relies on it being solely droplet spread, which we already knew was wrong months (at least) before the vaccines were announced.

by simonh 4y ago

gjsman-1000 4y ago

I don’t dispute that either - it make sense. However, does it not scare you… that it is a fact now, but was not a fact back then, despite being widely preached as a fact back then, and nobody was permitted to counter this “fact” back then and admit it was not so? That’s the uncomfortable part.

simonh 4y ago
No it doesn't scare me, they did the right thing and they had I think very strong reasons for doing so. They knew that the policy was safe because the risks of the vaccines evaluated in trials were very low, and they had many very good reasons based on experience from other infectious diseases as to what the outcome would be. They were in a situation where thousands, at times tens of thousands of people were dying every day. If you know a policy is very safe (not perfectly safe, not completely risk free, but known to be very low risk), and you know that the highly likely benefits are very high and are expected to save many many thousands of lives, why should I be scared of them implementing it? Genuinely, I just don't understand that attitude at all. It makes no sense to me. You look at the evidence and the risks and you make a decision. In this case I think it was a very easy one and huge numbers of people all over the world are alive now because of it. Meanwhile a lot of people are dead because they believed partial, misrepresented or incorrect information about the vaccines. Doesn't it scare you that people were spreading so much disinformation that was responsible for so many deaths? That excessive skepticism and distrust, based on simple lack of careful evaluation of widely available facts, was so incredibly destructive?

mistermann 4y ago

> It was an expectation, yes, not a proven fact... I wonder if they wonder if substantially (the memeplex is...complex) describing it otherwise was to their advantage, in retrospect.

simonh 4y ago
Who's "they"? It was to our advantage because it saved a lot of lives, and it was to the advantage of the public health services promoting the policy because it reduced demand on health services (and saved lives).
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Who's "they"? Tautologically, and objectively: those who said such things (intentionally or otherwise, and (from a causality perspective, which is contrary to the far more popular "justified" perspective) it is also subject to imperfect perception on the other end of the wire, if one is able to be comfortable with being extremely "scientific"). This is kinda what I was getting at by "the memeplex is...complex". > It was to our advantage because it saved a lot of lives, and it was to the advantage of the public health services promoting the policy because it reduced demand on health services (and saved lives). I do not substantially disagree. However, it may also be to our advantage to consider (or at least, try to consider) whether the degree to which we do such things is highly optimal in an absolute sense. Unfortunately, Western culture seems to have somehow ended up in a situation where speculative, and relative, representations of reality are considered (and taught, constantly) to be synonymous with reality itself....and, there is no shortage of thought terminating memes out there to keep us permanently at this stage (perhaps some of them will even emerge in response to this comment). Pardon if this is a bit excessively negative/pessimistic, but I am losing patience with the state of affairs on this planet. I gave you an upvote as a counterbalance, for what that's worth.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago

>that this would result in a reduced chance that people who caught the virus but were vaccinated would transmit the virus Shouldn't they have at least tried to study this if that was the expectation?

simonh 4y ago
They did, studies started almost immediately. It just took more time for the results to come out because transmission trials are much more fiddly and time consuming to do.

Izkata 4y ago

> The expectation was that because they knew the vaccines reduce the chances of getting symptoms such as coughs associated with transmission, reduced the time people were sick for, and also reduce the viral load in people who got sick This assumption relies on it being solely droplet spread, which we already knew was wrong months (at least) before the vaccines were announced.