5 ms·

>don't prevent spread Do you mean don't reduce spread at all, or don't prevent it 100%?

autoexec 4y ago
Either way, the claim that "vaccines do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people" is a clear lie. It's sad to see misinformation thrive here.
- briandon 4y ago
  It's accurate and factual to state that getting all low-risk people vaccinated with covid with the current set of available leaky, quickly-waning vaccines does nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people. The cited values for time post-shot to peak efficacy and the subsequent time from there to whatever threshold of efficacy you choose (and on to negative efficacy after that) are based on studies of groups of individuals. For some of the individuals, the shots were more or less effective than the mean/median/this-many-standard-devs value in preventing infection and then, as their jabs' effects weakened, in reducing viral load and symptoms that are relevant to onwards transmission. In the absence of any widely-enforced way of measuring an individual's viral load at any given moment, many people who believe themselves to be under a covid shot's umbrella of protection are actually infected with covid and spreading it. Covid is aerosol-borne and can linger in the air for hours. For high-risk people not living in a one-person habitat at the bottom of the ocean or on the Moon, there is no avoiding covid, even if everyone around them gets a booster every three months. There are reasons that effective vaccines for the viruses that cause the common cold (rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, et al.) and for influenza have never been developed. And everyone should have been very skeptical of authorities' "If you get this (or that) shot, you won't get or spread covid!" claims about a bunch of experimental vaccines (some since withdrawn or abandoned due to lack of uptake in the face of adverse effects or realizations about the mildness of this disease for most people) churned out in a matter of months.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > It's accurate and factual to state that getting all low-risk people vaccinated with covid with the current set of available leaky, quickly-waning vaccines does nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people. It's neither accurate or factual. Genuinely high-risk people who are vaccinated but get covid have much better outcomes than genuinely high-risk people who are not vaccinated. The vaccine can literally protect them from death. You'd have to be crazy to conclude that the vaccine "does nothing to protect" them.
    - briandon 4y ago
      You've placed the goal posts on roller skates and are hoping I don't point it out. From my original comment: "coercing mostly low-risk people into submitting to experimental, liability-free vaccines that don't prevent spread and so do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people" You are now citing an alleged benefit of lowered odds of severe illness and death to high-risk individuals from receiving the experimental vaccines themselves. I am decrying the government coercion/disinfo efforts that bribed, bullied, shamed, and frightened low-risk persons (non-elderly, exhibiting none of the known risk factors for serious disease, in apparent good health) into getting any of these shots on the (false) pretext that doing so would prevent truly high-risk persons from contracting covid.
      - electrondood 4y ago
        > government coercion/disinfo efforts that bribed, bullied, shamed, and frightened low-risk persons This is an obviously biased total misrepresentation.
      - autoexec 4y ago
        > From my original comment: "coercing mostly low-risk people into submitting to experimental, liability-free vaccines that don't prevent spread and so do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people" The "and so do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people" is still a lie. What you didn't say is "coercing mostly low-risk people into submitting to experimental, liability-free vaccines that don't prevent spread and so do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people from ever getting infected" which would still be a lie, but much much closer to the truth. Instead you misleadingly stated what you said in such a way that it made the vaccines sound like they weren't protecting genuinely high-risk people at all which is, again, a lie. The vaccines do protect genuinely high-risk people. It also helps prevent the spread of the virus, but at this point only a little. Against early strains of the virus the vaccines were very effective at preventing infection, but we've allowed the virus to evolve so now that's no longer the case. This wasn't a government conspiracy, it was a complex and changing situation and the CDC was very quick to inform the public once the data showed that the vaccines were not protecting against infection as well as they used to, and were also very clear about the fact that the vaccines are still (so far) highly effective at keeping people from dying and getting seriously ill.
briandon 4y ago
How much constantly-waning reduction of viral load and symptoms do you think would be necessary to coerce a healthy person not exhibiting any risk factors for severe covid-related illness into subjecting themselves to experimental vaccines with admitted 1 in 20k (or higher) risks for certain severe adverse effects up to an including death? When vaccine efficacy goes negative (you're more vulnerable to infection and become as or more symptomatic and carry as high or higher a viral load than unvaccinated) after a few months, you have to get a booster and subject yourself to the same or greater low, but non-negligible risk of known serious/fatal adverse effects in order to fingers crossed buy a few more months of protection you don't personally need but which you hope will reduce truly high-risk persons' chances of contracting covid. There may also be other, as-yet-unknown adverse effects. How long are you willing to keep running back and forth across a minefield?
- pdntspa 4y ago
  Everyone keeps saying "experimental vaccines" like we're just injecting ourselves with random shit, but we have a very good general understanding of how vaccines work. The COVID vaccines were not invented by frat boys playing with random chemistry... Given the situation a full run of trials would have taken far too much time.
  - TurkishPoptart 4y ago
    There is no long-term safety data on "boosting". That is what he's referring to, I think. There's also no long-term safety data on mRNA injections in general.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  Being unvaccinated or out of date on boosters is the minefield to me.
tyho 4y ago
Doesn't reduce the spread of the variants actually in circulation at all after just a few months after your last booster. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1109618/vaccine-surveillance-report-week-40.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Table 4a. They remain quite effective against hospitalisation and death, and have saved millions of lives globally, net. Old people should get vaccinated but the herd immunity arguments used to justify vaccination of young people are completely unjustified.
- ensignavenger 4y ago
  What I am seeing on the table says "insufficient data"?
  - tyho 4y ago
    Not enough people in the given category to give statistically sound figures. There isn't enough vaccinated or unvaccinated people getting hospitalised or dying to draw significant results.
incomingpain 4y ago
It was misinformation the vaccine prevents spread, misinformation spread by the governments. You still get sick during each wave, you still spread the virus. The only thing it does is reduce the amount of symptoms.
- acdha 4y ago
  It did reduce spread, but not perfectly so and that fell as more evasive variants evolved.
  - incomingpain 4y ago
    >It did reduce spread, but not perfectly so and that fell as more evasive variants evolved. I don't blame you because the governments spread this misinformation. The CDC has recanted this misinformation. 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-... But we also know the CDC's original position was false. More importantly, all social media platforms universally censored the scientist who discovered the mrna vaccine because he said... they dont prevent spread.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      "While vaccines do not offer 100% protection against COVID-19 infection, they can still partially defend against infection. Vaccines remain effective at protecting from COVID-19-caused serious illness, hospitalization and death." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/21/fact-check-vaccines-limit-serious-illness-and-death-covid-19/9185671002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/21/fac...
      - incomingpain 4y ago
        You're using USAtoday facecheckers against a CDC director? Do you feel this will be a convincing argument?
    - acdha 4y ago

Either way, the claim that "vaccines do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people" is a clear lie. It's sad to see misinformation thrive here.

briandon 4y ago
It's accurate and factual to state that getting all low-risk people vaccinated with covid with the current set of available leaky, quickly-waning vaccines does nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people. The cited values for time post-shot to peak efficacy and the subsequent time from there to whatever threshold of efficacy you choose (and on to negative efficacy after that) are based on studies of groups of individuals. For some of the individuals, the shots were more or less effective than the mean/median/this-many-standard-devs value in preventing infection and then, as their jabs' effects weakened, in reducing viral load and symptoms that are relevant to onwards transmission. In the absence of any widely-enforced way of measuring an individual's viral load at any given moment, many people who believe themselves to be under a covid shot's umbrella of protection are actually infected with covid and spreading it. Covid is aerosol-borne and can linger in the air for hours. For high-risk people not living in a one-person habitat at the bottom of the ocean or on the Moon, there is no avoiding covid, even if everyone around them gets a booster every three months. There are reasons that effective vaccines for the viruses that cause the common cold (rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, et al.) and for influenza have never been developed. And everyone should have been very skeptical of authorities' "If you get this (or that) shot, you won't get or spread covid!" claims about a bunch of experimental vaccines (some since withdrawn or abandoned due to lack of uptake in the face of adverse effects or realizations about the mildness of this disease for most people) churned out in a matter of months.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > It's accurate and factual to state that getting all low-risk people vaccinated with covid with the current set of available leaky, quickly-waning vaccines does nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people. It's neither accurate or factual. Genuinely high-risk people who are vaccinated but get covid have much better outcomes than genuinely high-risk people who are not vaccinated. The vaccine can literally protect them from death. You'd have to be crazy to conclude that the vaccine "does nothing to protect" them.
  - briandon 4y ago
    You've placed the goal posts on roller skates and are hoping I don't point it out. From my original comment: "coercing mostly low-risk people into submitting to experimental, liability-free vaccines that don't prevent spread and so do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people" You are now citing an alleged benefit of lowered odds of severe illness and death to high-risk individuals from receiving the experimental vaccines themselves. I am decrying the government coercion/disinfo efforts that bribed, bullied, shamed, and frightened low-risk persons (non-elderly, exhibiting none of the known risk factors for serious disease, in apparent good health) into getting any of these shots on the (false) pretext that doing so would prevent truly high-risk persons from contracting covid.
    - electrondood 4y ago
      > government coercion/disinfo efforts that bribed, bullied, shamed, and frightened low-risk persons This is an obviously biased total misrepresentation.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      > From my original comment: "coercing mostly low-risk people into submitting to experimental, liability-free vaccines that don't prevent spread and so do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people" The "and so do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people" is still a lie. What you didn't say is "coercing mostly low-risk people into submitting to experimental, liability-free vaccines that don't prevent spread and so do nothing to protect genuinely high-risk people from ever getting infected" which would still be a lie, but much much closer to the truth. Instead you misleadingly stated what you said in such a way that it made the vaccines sound like they weren't protecting genuinely high-risk people at all which is, again, a lie. The vaccines do protect genuinely high-risk people. It also helps prevent the spread of the virus, but at this point only a little. Against early strains of the virus the vaccines were very effective at preventing infection, but we've allowed the virus to evolve so now that's no longer the case. This wasn't a government conspiracy, it was a complex and changing situation and the CDC was very quick to inform the public once the data showed that the vaccines were not protecting against infection as well as they used to, and were also very clear about the fact that the vaccines are still (so far) highly effective at keeping people from dying and getting seriously ill.

briandon 4y ago

How much constantly-waning reduction of viral load and symptoms do you think would be necessary to coerce a healthy person not exhibiting any risk factors for severe covid-related illness into subjecting themselves to experimental vaccines with admitted 1 in 20k (or higher) risks for certain severe adverse effects up to an including death? When vaccine efficacy goes negative (you're more vulnerable to infection and become as or more symptomatic and carry as high or higher a viral load than unvaccinated) after a few months, you have to get a booster and subject yourself to the same or greater low, but non-negligible risk of known serious/fatal adverse effects in order to fingers crossed buy a few more months of protection you don't personally need but which you hope will reduce truly high-risk persons' chances of contracting covid. There may also be other, as-yet-unknown adverse effects. How long are you willing to keep running back and forth across a minefield?

pdntspa 4y ago
Everyone keeps saying "experimental vaccines" like we're just injecting ourselves with random shit, but we have a very good general understanding of how vaccines work. The COVID vaccines were not invented by frat boys playing with random chemistry... Given the situation a full run of trials would have taken far too much time.
- TurkishPoptart 4y ago
  There is no long-term safety data on "boosting". That is what he's referring to, I think. There's also no long-term safety data on mRNA injections in general.
thehappypm 4y ago
Being unvaccinated or out of date on boosters is the minefield to me.

tyho 4y ago

Doesn't reduce the spread of the variants actually in circulation at all after just a few months after your last booster. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1109618/vaccine-surveillance-report-week-40.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Table 4a. They remain quite effective against hospitalisation and death, and have saved millions of lives globally, net. Old people should get vaccinated but the herd immunity arguments used to justify vaccination of young people are completely unjustified.

ensignavenger 4y ago
What I am seeing on the table says "insufficient data"?
- tyho 4y ago
  Not enough people in the given category to give statistically sound figures. There isn't enough vaccinated or unvaccinated people getting hospitalised or dying to draw significant results.

incomingpain 4y ago

It was misinformation the vaccine prevents spread, misinformation spread by the governments. You still get sick during each wave, you still spread the virus. The only thing it does is reduce the amount of symptoms.

acdha 4y ago
It did reduce spread, but not perfectly so and that fell as more evasive variants evolved.
- incomingpain 4y ago
  >It did reduce spread, but not perfectly so and that fell as more evasive variants evolved. I don't blame you because the governments spread this misinformation. The CDC has recanted this misinformation. 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-... But we also know the CDC's original position was false. More importantly, all social media platforms universally censored the scientist who discovered the mrna vaccine because he said... they dont prevent spread.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    "While vaccines do not offer 100% protection against COVID-19 infection, they can still partially defend against infection. Vaccines remain effective at protecting from COVID-19-caused serious illness, hospitalization and death." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/21/fact-check-vaccines-limit-serious-illness-and-death-covid-19/9185671002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/21/fac...
    - incomingpain 4y ago
      You're using USAtoday facecheckers against a CDC director? Do you feel this will be a convincing argument?
  - acdha 4y ago