3 ms·

There's a very simple reason the vaccines weren't tested for reduction in transmission: that sort of test is much more difficult and takes much longer. When the

There's a very simple reason the vaccines weren't tested for reduction in transmission: that sort of test is much more difficult and takes much longer. When the virus is killing thousands daily just in the U.S., you use the most obvious data to demonstrate effectiveness (or not) and hope that deeper analysis down the road will show other benefits.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
But if you mandate vaccines, because "if you're not vaccinated, you'll infect grandma", somehow testing if vaccinated people can transmit it, should be a priority. If this was some non-mandatory voulountary vaccine.. sure, test one thing, then another,.... If you were put in a position where you were effectively forced to get it (or else you'd eg. lose your job), such things should be tested first.
- gcanyon 4y ago
  They are testing whether vaccinated people can transmit. That research is ongoing. Again, if they had started with that, we might just be rolling out the vaccines now, which would have cost additional millions of lives. Vaccines suffer from their effectiveness. For comparison with covid, measles killed only a few hundred each year (in the US). Vaccination to the level of herd immunity was required to reduce that number; if only half the population were vaccinated, we'd see half those deaths. Covid is still killing roughly the same number of people each day as measles killed in a year, yet people resist getting vaccinated. It's objectively stupid. To your exact point, your employer should be entitled to set the safety protocols that are necessary to ensure the health of their workforce.
refurb 4y ago
I agree. It wasn't a criticism of the trials, but rather the officials making claims for which there is no data.
- gcanyon 4y ago
  There wasn't no data, just not specific statistical data from experimentation with these vaccines. Experts had data on previous vaccines, general knowledge of symptomatology, contagion, etc. It's only reasonable that reasonable experts might differ on the specifics given the level of extrapolation, but that's not "no data".

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

But if you mandate vaccines, because "if you're not vaccinated, you'll infect grandma", somehow testing if vaccinated people can transmit it, should be a priority. If this was some non-mandatory voulountary vaccine.. sure, test one thing, then another,.... If you were put in a position where you were effectively forced to get it (or else you'd eg. lose your job), such things should be tested first.

gcanyon 4y ago
They are testing whether vaccinated people can transmit. That research is ongoing. Again, if they had started with that, we might just be rolling out the vaccines now, which would have cost additional millions of lives. Vaccines suffer from their effectiveness. For comparison with covid, measles killed only a few hundred each year (in the US). Vaccination to the level of herd immunity was required to reduce that number; if only half the population were vaccinated, we'd see half those deaths. Covid is still killing roughly the same number of people each day as measles killed in a year, yet people resist getting vaccinated. It's objectively stupid. To your exact point, your employer should be entitled to set the safety protocols that are necessary to ensure the health of their workforce.

refurb 4y ago

I agree. It wasn't a criticism of the trials, but rather the officials making claims for which there is no data.

gcanyon 4y ago
There wasn't no data, just not specific statistical data from experimentation with these vaccines. Experts had data on previous vaccines, general knowledge of symptomatology, contagion, etc. It's only reasonable that reasonable experts might differ on the specifics given the level of extrapolation, but that's not "no data".