3 ms·

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 p

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

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