3 ms·

Good point, and now that we know the vaccines don't prevent transmission, the same goes for the vaccinated I suppose.

epgui 4y ago
They do prevent transmission. God, I wish misinformation would not spread so easily. (Edit: I'm a biochemist, merely relaying a consensus position, in my area of expertise, and getting downvoted. Nice.)
- TOMDM 4y ago
  If we're being specific, they reduce transmission, they don't wholesale prevent it. My frustration is people will look at "decreases mortality by xx%" or "decreases spread by y%" and conclude that it's not worth taking even when the risks are slim to non existent. Hacker News is a place where we talk about billion dollar industries that are built on someone doing something 2% better than the other guy, but all that reason goes out the window when it comes to healthcare and it's killing hundreds of thousands of people.
  - epgui 4y ago
    That is correct.
- greenyoda 4y ago
  In January, the director of the CDC said: "...what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission. So if you're going home to somebody who has not been vaccinated, somebody who can't get vaccinated... I would suggest you wear a mask in a public indoor setting" 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-...
  - nwiswell 4y ago
    This is an issue of semantics. They "prevent" in the sense that they "reduce the risk", not in the sense that they "preclude entirely". Put another way: they prevent some transmission. They do not prevent all transmission. It's not unusual to be sloppy with the definition here. Typically you would say that birth control prevents pregnancy, even though it is not 100% efficacious.
    - epgui 4y ago
      That is correct. As for sloppiness... If there used to be 100 cookies in the cookie jar, and now there are 95, then there's a difference between saying "I did not eat cookies" (the implication is that you did not eat any of the missing 5 cookies) and saying "I did not eat all the missing cookies" (the implication being that you ate fewer than 5 cookies). Saying the vaccines don't prevent transmission is the same as saying they prevent 0% of transmission, which is completely false.
      - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
        I see this exact back and forth in a lot of threads, but I never see it go to the obvious conclusion. It sounds like you can probably shed some light on this based on your background. A) they dont prevent transmission B) they don't prevent _all_ transmission. No vaccine is 100% effective. C) end of thread I always wonder, well are these ones 99% effective^? 98% 97%? It would be a slam dunk if you could just say some number there that is in say the 70s or higher. But everybody stops at "well they aren't 100%" (and you're an asshole/dummy/republican for not getting one). But that leaves about 100 other options for what the efficacy could be. Obviously it's a moving target and depends on a lot of variables, but as of today, what do we understand to be the quantified benefit to somebody standing next to me if I've gotten vaccinated? And how long will that benefit last? ^ against infection here specifically, and right now, not for any mostly extinct variants
- yucky 4y ago
  - epgui 4y ago
    They do, because it's not 100% effective at preventing transmission. That does not mean it is 0% effective. Anything greater than 0% effectively prevents transmission. FYI, this is my area of expertise.
    - yucky 4y ago
      The majority of Covid deaths now are people who are vaccinated[0]. I'm old enough to remember when the Director of the CDC[1] and the US President[2] both said vaccinated people couldn't get or spread Covid. So spare me with the claims of expertise. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/23/vaccinated-people-now-make-up-majority-covid-deaths/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/23/vaccinate... [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/fact-check-biden-cnn-town-hall-july/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/fact-check-biden-cnn...
    - throwoutway 4y ago
      so if it’s a 1% prevention is sufficient to get into a semantic debate and call things misinformation? That’s unrealistic and is why your other post is being downvoted
- throwoutway 4y ago
  Far from accurate. This is NOT the consensus

They do prevent transmission. God, I wish misinformation would not spread so easily. (Edit: I'm a biochemist, merely relaying a consensus position, in my area of expertise, and getting downvoted. Nice.)

TOMDM 4y ago
If we're being specific, they reduce transmission, they don't wholesale prevent it. My frustration is people will look at "decreases mortality by xx%" or "decreases spread by y%" and conclude that it's not worth taking even when the risks are slim to non existent. Hacker News is a place where we talk about billion dollar industries that are built on someone doing something 2% better than the other guy, but all that reason goes out the window when it comes to healthcare and it's killing hundreds of thousands of people.
- epgui 4y ago
  That is correct.
greenyoda 4y ago
In January, the director of the CDC said: "...what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission. So if you're going home to somebody who has not been vaccinated, somebody who can't get vaccinated... I would suggest you wear a mask in a public indoor setting" 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-...
- nwiswell 4y ago
  This is an issue of semantics. They "prevent" in the sense that they "reduce the risk", not in the sense that they "preclude entirely". Put another way: they prevent some transmission. They do not prevent all transmission. It's not unusual to be sloppy with the definition here. Typically you would say that birth control prevents pregnancy, even though it is not 100% efficacious.
  - epgui 4y ago
    That is correct. As for sloppiness... If there used to be 100 cookies in the cookie jar, and now there are 95, then there's a difference between saying "I did not eat cookies" (the implication is that you did not eat any of the missing 5 cookies) and saying "I did not eat all the missing cookies" (the implication being that you ate fewer than 5 cookies). Saying the vaccines don't prevent transmission is the same as saying they prevent 0% of transmission, which is completely false.
    - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
      I see this exact back and forth in a lot of threads, but I never see it go to the obvious conclusion. It sounds like you can probably shed some light on this based on your background. A) they dont prevent transmission B) they don't prevent _all_ transmission. No vaccine is 100% effective. C) end of thread I always wonder, well are these ones 99% effective^? 98% 97%? It would be a slam dunk if you could just say some number there that is in say the 70s or higher. But everybody stops at "well they aren't 100%" (and you're an asshole/dummy/republican for not getting one). But that leaves about 100 other options for what the efficacy could be. Obviously it's a moving target and depends on a lot of variables, but as of today, what do we understand to be the quantified benefit to somebody standing next to me if I've gotten vaccinated? And how long will that benefit last? ^ against infection here specifically, and right now, not for any mostly extinct variants
yucky 4y ago
- epgui 4y ago
  They do, because it's not 100% effective at preventing transmission. That does not mean it is 0% effective. Anything greater than 0% effectively prevents transmission. FYI, this is my area of expertise.
  - yucky 4y ago
    The majority of Covid deaths now are people who are vaccinated[0]. I'm old enough to remember when the Director of the CDC[1] and the US President[2] both said vaccinated people couldn't get or spread Covid. So spare me with the claims of expertise. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/23/vaccinated-people-now-make-up-majority-covid-deaths/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/23/vaccinate... [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/fact-check-biden-cnn-town-hall-july/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/fact-check-biden-cnn...
  - throwoutway 4y ago
    so if it’s a 1% prevention is sufficient to get into a semantic debate and call things misinformation? That’s unrealistic and is why your other post is being downvoted
throwoutway 4y ago
Far from accurate. This is NOT the consensus