4 ms·

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

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 claims about a bunch of experimental vaccines (some since withdrawn or abandoned due to lack of uptake in the face of adverse effects or realizations about the mildness of this disease for most people) churned out in a matter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.

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.