4 ms·

>claiming the vaccines did not stop the spread (now proven accurate) The opposite was evidentially proven, multiple times. Vaccines stopped the virus transmitt

>claiming the vaccines did not stop the spread (now proven accurate) The opposite was evidentially proven, multiple times. Vaccines stopped the virus transmitting from infected individuals in many if not most interactions: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pfizer-vaccine-transmission/fact-check-preventing-transmission-never-required-for-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-vax-did-reduce-transmission-of-early-variants-idUSL1N31F20E#:~:text=VACCINE%20DID%20REDUCE%20TRANSMISSION https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pfizer-vaccine-tra... If you're saying it doesn't 100% eliminate the chance of infection or transmission, no one who knew anything about vaccines ever claimed that. (As for the lab leak hypothesis, there's still only circumstantial evidence, not enough to conclusively priviledge it above the zoonotic hypothesis. There was even less evidence at the time, and anyone discussing it was only serving to distract from the conversation to blame China, a country that was already doing more than any other country to stop the spread (arguably too much)).

DiggyJohnson 4y ago
Are you saying that you're comfortable banning conversation of important, unresolved issues? I'm not sure I see your point, and > There was even less evidence at the time, and anyone discussing it was only serving to distract from the conversation to blame China is both a very strong assumption about the motivations of those you disagree with, and a very political opinion of yours that many might not agree with. If anything, this comment of yours seems to contain an example of the exact thing being criticized: limiting certain domains of speech (including certain positions within some domain) for the reason that you don't think it's right, or dangerous, or it doesn't agree with your politics or int'l relations, or w/e.
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  Nothing in my comment limits speech. You'll note I'm not saying they should have been banned for talking about anything. I'm noting that presenting those topics as if the people who got banned for discussing them were merely presenting facts is incorrect, and a poor defense. That said, I do believe those who promote actively false or intentionally misleading information (misinformation), especially that which has significant negative impact on the public, do deserve moderator actions, up to and including being banned in some cases. (Also, discussion of "important, unresolved issues" is rarely resolved by letting random twitter conspiracy theorists say whatever they want.)
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    >That said, I do believe those who promote actively false or intentionally misleading information (misinformation), especially that which has significant negative impact on the public, do deserve moderator actions, up to and including being banned in some cases. Like when Fauci and the CDC told people not to wear masks because they weren't effective (because they failed to stockpile enough masks in case of a health emergency)? Or when the US government insisted that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11? When you give the power to any central authority to unilaterally silence anyone they declare is engaged in "false or intentionally misleading information" you aren't eliminating false and intentionally misleading information, you are merely giving the central power a monopoly on disseminating false and misleading information that nobody else is allowed to challenge.
  - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
    I genuinely don’t see how your first sentence can be reconciled with the latter two paragraphs.
Manuel_D 4y ago
> If you're saying it doesn't 100% eliminate the chance of infection or transmission, no one who knew anything about vaccines ever claimed that. Except it was: saying you can transmit the virus after having been vaccinated was indeed categorized as misinformation and suppressed for at least several months until breakthrough infections become common enough that the government couldn't keep a lid on it. The official line was that if you were vaccinated you could not spread the virus and diverging from this line would be met with censorship.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago

Are you saying that you're comfortable banning conversation of important, unresolved issues? I'm not sure I see your point, and > There was even less evidence at the time, and anyone discussing it was only serving to distract from the conversation to blame China is both a very strong assumption about the motivations of those you disagree with, and a very political opinion of yours that many might not agree with. If anything, this comment of yours seems to contain an example of the exact thing being criticized: limiting certain domains of speech (including certain positions within some domain) for the reason that you don't think it's right, or dangerous, or it doesn't agree with your politics or int'l relations, or w/e.

LordDragonfang 4y ago
Nothing in my comment limits speech. You'll note I'm not saying they should have been banned for talking about anything. I'm noting that presenting those topics as if the people who got banned for discussing them were merely presenting facts is incorrect, and a poor defense. That said, I do believe those who promote actively false or intentionally misleading information (misinformation), especially that which has significant negative impact on the public, do deserve moderator actions, up to and including being banned in some cases. (Also, discussion of "important, unresolved issues" is rarely resolved by letting random twitter conspiracy theorists say whatever they want.)
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >That said, I do believe those who promote actively false or intentionally misleading information (misinformation), especially that which has significant negative impact on the public, do deserve moderator actions, up to and including being banned in some cases. Like when Fauci and the CDC told people not to wear masks because they weren't effective (because they failed to stockpile enough masks in case of a health emergency)? Or when the US government insisted that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11? When you give the power to any central authority to unilaterally silence anyone they declare is engaged in "false or intentionally misleading information" you aren't eliminating false and intentionally misleading information, you are merely giving the central power a monopoly on disseminating false and misleading information that nobody else is allowed to challenge.
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  I genuinely don’t see how your first sentence can be reconciled with the latter two paragraphs.

Manuel_D 4y ago

> If you're saying it doesn't 100% eliminate the chance of infection or transmission, no one who knew anything about vaccines ever claimed that. Except it was: saying you can transmit the virus after having been vaccinated was indeed categorized as misinformation and suppressed for at least several months until breakthrough infections become common enough that the government couldn't keep a lid on it. The official line was that if you were vaccinated you could not spread the virus and diverging from this line would be met with censorship.