4 ms·

...Because it was deemed likely based on all previous knowledge about vaccines and transmission, and that turned out to be correct. I don't know what your obje

...Because it was deemed likely based on all previous knowledge about vaccines and transmission, and that turned out to be correct. I don't know what your objection is here. "Pfizer couldn't see the future"? "They should have just let people die while they conducted further tests of something they had every reason to believe would work (and, again, did work)"?

nailer 4y ago
Er no the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission. This is mainstream knowledge at this point. My objection and I suspect many others is that governments lying to people about something they have no data on is immoral.
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  Read the article I just linked to. Scroll down, there's a heading for it. From my other comment in this thread: >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-tra 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. Lying to people on the internet about something you have no sources for is also immoral.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > no one who knew anything about vaccines ever claimed that. Be that as it may, many public health authorities did. > Lying to people on the internet about something you have no sources for is also immoral. Where does putting a comment with a broken link so it looks like you have a source fit into that calculus?
    - LordDragonfang 4y ago
      My mistake, I copied and pasted it from HN, didn't realize it was truncated. I've pasted the working link twice in this thread already though. Here it is a third time: 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... >Be that as it may, many public health authorities did. Should be easy to provide even a single example of that, then?
      - lmm 4y ago
        Here's the kind of thing that was being said in my country at the time: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55056016 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55056016 . The vaccine is described as "effective" and "immunisation". Looking that up in published health authority documentation: "Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation." "Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected." The message that was broadcast, and the message that was understood, was that this was the same kind of thing as the other things that are usually described by the word "vaccine": something that makes you immune, that reliably prevents infection, such that vaccinated people don't need to take any other precautions.
      - nailer 4y ago
        In addition to the BBC, if you live in the US you should know that CNN repeated the line about vaccines stopping transmission (not ‘in many cases’) repeatedly. I’ll let you do the Googling since I’m busy and you’re the one arguing against what most people can recall.
  - nailer 4y ago
    Have you read the article? Because transmission not happening “in many if not most” is massively different from stopping transmission per se.
  - 0xy 4y ago
    You have to realize that the claim of "vaccines stop the spread" is massively far from what actually happened -- vaccinated people spread the virus literally millions of times and thousands died as a result. Let's look what Dr Fauci claimed, exactly. >Vaccinated people become ‘dead ends’ for the coronavirus [1] >If You’re Vaccinated, You’re Safe [2] Aren't this claims just straight up lies? He knew they were lies at the time he said them, which makes them worse. [1] https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/ https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrjMLONm-Bw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrjMLONm-Bw
Manuel_D 4y ago
Are we supposed to just accept labeling misinformation and suppressing claims that we don't actually have any evidence for or against, just based on "previous knowledge"? It's not that Pfizer was wrong to say that the vaccine would reduce transmission (after all, it did), but was wrong for authorities deny the possibility of breakthrough infections and transmission from vaccinated people (which was labeled misinformation for quite a while). There's a vast, vast difference between saying "reinfection and transmission is less likely" and saying "reinfection and transmission is impossible". The latter was the only permissible line, and anything less was labeled misinformation for quite a while. If we're going to label something as misinformation, we better be damn sure it actually is false. Otherwise trust in our institutions will plummet.

nailer 4y ago

Er no the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission. This is mainstream knowledge at this point. My objection and I suspect many others is that governments lying to people about something they have no data on is immoral.

LordDragonfang 4y ago
Read the article I just linked to. Scroll down, there's a heading for it. From my other comment in this thread: >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-tra 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. Lying to people on the internet about something you have no sources for is also immoral.
- lmm 4y ago
  > no one who knew anything about vaccines ever claimed that. Be that as it may, many public health authorities did. > Lying to people on the internet about something you have no sources for is also immoral. Where does putting a comment with a broken link so it looks like you have a source fit into that calculus?
  - LordDragonfang 4y ago
    My mistake, I copied and pasted it from HN, didn't realize it was truncated. I've pasted the working link twice in this thread already though. Here it is a third time: 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... >Be that as it may, many public health authorities did. Should be easy to provide even a single example of that, then?
    - lmm 4y ago
      Here's the kind of thing that was being said in my country at the time: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55056016 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55056016 . The vaccine is described as "effective" and "immunisation". Looking that up in published health authority documentation: "Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation." "Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected." The message that was broadcast, and the message that was understood, was that this was the same kind of thing as the other things that are usually described by the word "vaccine": something that makes you immune, that reliably prevents infection, such that vaccinated people don't need to take any other precautions.
    - nailer 4y ago
      In addition to the BBC, if you live in the US you should know that CNN repeated the line about vaccines stopping transmission (not ‘in many cases’) repeatedly. I’ll let you do the Googling since I’m busy and you’re the one arguing against what most people can recall.
- nailer 4y ago
  Have you read the article? Because transmission not happening “in many if not most” is massively different from stopping transmission per se.
- 0xy 4y ago
  You have to realize that the claim of "vaccines stop the spread" is massively far from what actually happened -- vaccinated people spread the virus literally millions of times and thousands died as a result. Let's look what Dr Fauci claimed, exactly. >Vaccinated people become ‘dead ends’ for the coronavirus [1] >If You’re Vaccinated, You’re Safe [2] Aren't this claims just straight up lies? He knew they were lies at the time he said them, which makes them worse. [1] https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/ https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrjMLONm-Bw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrjMLONm-Bw

Manuel_D 4y ago

Are we supposed to just accept labeling misinformation and suppressing claims that we don't actually have any evidence for or against, just based on "previous knowledge"? It's not that Pfizer was wrong to say that the vaccine would reduce transmission (after all, it did), but was wrong for authorities deny the possibility of breakthrough infections and transmission from vaccinated people (which was labeled misinformation for quite a while). There's a vast, vast difference between saying "reinfection and transmission is less likely" and saying "reinfection and transmission is impossible". The latter was the only permissible line, and anything less was labeled misinformation for quite a while. If we're going to label something as misinformation, we better be damn sure it actually is false. Otherwise trust in our institutions will plummet.