3 ms·

This is a ridiculous take. Vaccines have long been our most effective weapon against infectious disease, especially viruses. The CDC screwed up a number of thin

This is a ridiculous take. Vaccines have long been our most effective weapon against infectious disease, especially viruses. The CDC screwed up a number of things in the last few years, but vaccination is a vital tool for protecting the whole community with very few downsides.

glerk 4y ago
Except that these so-called “vaccines” don’t stop transmission like the vaccines you’re thinking about.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > these so-called “vaccines” don’t stop transmission like the vaccines you’re thinking about Like the inactivated poliovirus [1]? Sterilising vaccines [2] haven’t been a priority because the subpopulation that enjoys getting measles was historically small. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine [2] https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/vaccine-types https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/vaccine-types
  - glerk 4y ago
    From the article you linked: > OPV produces excellent immunity in the intestine, the primary site of wild poliovirus entry, which helps prevent infection with wild virus in areas where the virus is endemic. It seems like the polio vaccine actually prevents infection which is not the case for the COVID “vaccine” which is purely therapeutical.
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
      The vaccine isn’t therapeutic, it just doesn’t confer total immunity like some vaccines, mostly because COVID mutates frequently. Are you thinking of the monoclonal antibody treatment?
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > seems like the polio vaccine actually prevents infection OPV (“o” as in oral) sterilises. IPV (“i” as in inactivated) doesn’t. IPV doesn’t spread vaccine-derived poliovirus, so it’s the more widely-used one. (It comes down to whether the virus is neutralised in the gut or the blood.) The polio case in Brooklyn was an unvaccinated man getting a vaccine-derived infection from the sterilising OPV [1][2]. [1] https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/101054 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/1010... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12931339/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12931339/
- azinman2 4y ago
  It wasn’t known if it would or not. But the fact that it massively reduces risk to the virus is a giant win. What’s wrong with that?
  - daveevad 4y ago
    This recent firestorm about whether or not the vaccine was studied prior to release to measure its effectiveness at transmission seems like it stemmed from a single comment in the European Union's inquiry. Has it been determined more substantially that Pfizer and Moderna did not study transmission while the vaccines were in development?
    - azinman2 4y ago
      I would think that couldn’t occur in the beginning. Most clinical trials are simply about safety and effectiveness for the individual. Transmission is a very difficult thing to study, especially in a clinical trial, and time was of the essence. I doubt it was a goal post for anyone, and we just needed something to stem risk of hospitalization and death. Vaccines did provide exactly that and still do.
      - daveevad 4y ago
        I substantially agree with you but would contend that effectiveness should have included transmissibility. If it is the case that it was not studied, it does seem that some of the messaging and assumptions about vaccine mandates and/or passports is questionable. I maintain, however, a lot of skepticism that transmissibility wasn't studied initially based on this one quote about "moving at the speed of science."
      - yucky 4y ago
        >I doubt it was a goal post for anyone Except of course, the mandates. The main argument for healthy people to get it was to save granny. Except they never bothered to study transmission, which means they lied to get the mandates in place. It's not that they "just didn't know". It's that they knew they were lying when they said mandates were needed to stop transmission. So now that creates a huge problem moving forward. Who but the most subservient will ever believe anything they say now?

glerk 4y ago

Except that these so-called “vaccines” don’t stop transmission like the vaccines you’re thinking about.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> these so-called “vaccines” don’t stop transmission like the vaccines you’re thinking about Like the inactivated poliovirus [1]? Sterilising vaccines [2] haven’t been a priority because the subpopulation that enjoys getting measles was historically small. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine [2] https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/vaccine-types https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/vaccine-types
- glerk 4y ago
  From the article you linked: > OPV produces excellent immunity in the intestine, the primary site of wild poliovirus entry, which helps prevent infection with wild virus in areas where the virus is endemic. It seems like the polio vaccine actually prevents infection which is not the case for the COVID “vaccine” which is purely therapeutical.
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    The vaccine isn’t therapeutic, it just doesn’t confer total immunity like some vaccines, mostly because COVID mutates frequently. Are you thinking of the monoclonal antibody treatment?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > seems like the polio vaccine actually prevents infection OPV (“o” as in oral) sterilises. IPV (“i” as in inactivated) doesn’t. IPV doesn’t spread vaccine-derived poliovirus, so it’s the more widely-used one. (It comes down to whether the virus is neutralised in the gut or the blood.) The polio case in Brooklyn was an unvaccinated man getting a vaccine-derived infection from the sterilising OPV [1][2]. [1] https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/101054 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/1010... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12931339/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12931339/
azinman2 4y ago
It wasn’t known if it would or not. But the fact that it massively reduces risk to the virus is a giant win. What’s wrong with that?
- daveevad 4y ago
  This recent firestorm about whether or not the vaccine was studied prior to release to measure its effectiveness at transmission seems like it stemmed from a single comment in the European Union's inquiry. Has it been determined more substantially that Pfizer and Moderna did not study transmission while the vaccines were in development?
  - azinman2 4y ago
    I would think that couldn’t occur in the beginning. Most clinical trials are simply about safety and effectiveness for the individual. Transmission is a very difficult thing to study, especially in a clinical trial, and time was of the essence. I doubt it was a goal post for anyone, and we just needed something to stem risk of hospitalization and death. Vaccines did provide exactly that and still do.
    - daveevad 4y ago
      I substantially agree with you but would contend that effectiveness should have included transmissibility. If it is the case that it was not studied, it does seem that some of the messaging and assumptions about vaccine mandates and/or passports is questionable. I maintain, however, a lot of skepticism that transmissibility wasn't studied initially based on this one quote about "moving at the speed of science."
    - yucky 4y ago
      >I doubt it was a goal post for anyone Except of course, the mandates. The main argument for healthy people to get it was to save granny. Except they never bothered to study transmission, which means they lied to get the mandates in place. It's not that they "just didn't know". It's that they knew they were lying when they said mandates were needed to stop transmission. So now that creates a huge problem moving forward. Who but the most subservient will ever believe anything they say now?