3 ms·

Yeah, the push to vaccinate children was not for the children, but to protect the old. And what will likely happen now, is a stronger push for forced vaccinatio

Yeah, the push to vaccinate children was not for the children, but to protect the old. And what will likely happen now, is a stronger push for forced vaccinations, met by even more entrenching of the anti-vaxx crowd.

realjhol 4y ago
[flagged]
- blumomo 4y ago
  Why in 2023 people still believe that C19 mRNA prevents infecting others? This myth has long been classified as wrong (unlike advertised in the beginning of its rollout)
  - knaik94 4y ago
    If you don't become infected, you can't infect others. The vaccine reduces the chances of you become sick with covid.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597 "Although vaccination still lowers the risk of infection, similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons who are infected with the delta variant call into question the degree to which vaccination prevents transmission." Not to dispute your claim, but to put it into context. But apart from that, I am out of this debate.
    - grjdiofgeriov 4y ago
      If you don't know you are infected, you increase the risk of infecting others. As we know, the primary effect of the various vaccines was to reduce the incidences of symptomatic covid. "Becoming sick with Covid" and "becoming infected with Covid" are very different things.
  - Avamander 4y ago
    It's just that the nuance is often ignored in the initial saying. Why do people try to debunk something out of a game of telephone instead on restoring the original information. Point has always been that people who are less ill, less severely ill, for a shorter duration, with fewer or no symptoms, have lower chances of infecting others. The urge to simplify is great but it causes these weird discussions like "does the vaccine prevent (all) infection" or like what we have here.
    - fdschoeneman 4y ago
      I understand why Biden, his administration, fauci and the CDC lied. The telephone game effect is real. And sometimes lies are well I intentioned, if stupid. But that doesn't change the fact that they all lied to us.
    - therealdrag0 4y ago
      Do you have a good source on the “less I’ll less duration less spread” angle. A friend was just arguing with me recently about how ineffectual the vaccine was. So a good nuanced source would be helpful.
    - Izkata 4y ago
      > Point has always been that people who are less ill, less severely ill, for a shorter duration, with fewer or no symptoms, have lower chances of infecting others. The most recent research on the types of antibodies the vaccines create vs natural infection are showing the opposite: it causes our bodies to treat the virus more like an allergy, reducing the symptoms while clearing the infection much slower. This gives more chance to infect others, not less.
  - yucky 4y ago
    > Why in 2023 people still believe that C19 mRNA prevents infecting others? Because the Director of the CDC and the President of the United States have both at several times made this claim publicly. The fact that we now know they were lying is why we're in this situation to begin with.
    - Izkata 4y ago
      > The fact that we now know Some of us knew they were lying from the start and had a very frustrating few years: Pfizer made no claims about infection/transmission, just symptoms, because they never tested for infection/transmission. That claim popped up out of nowhere a few months after the vaccines were available.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    > Why in 2023 people still believe that C19 mRNA prevents infecting others? This myth has long been classified as wrong Because it does. Your chances of getting and spreading COVID for the 3 months after you get a vaccine drop dramatically.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  The vaccines are less risky than infection for children even though the risks from infection are low. Are you somehow assuming that they aren't ever going to get infected?
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "The vaccines are less risky than infection for children" Can you back up that claim with long term studies?
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      I mean, you can't back up the converse with long terms studies either. Just infer the very reasonable "based on the information available". And it's not like the vaccines are a complete unknown. Making them work at all takes a huge level of understanding.
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        I know, that is my point. Parenting is a juggling of risks. "based on the information available" And the information avaiable is confusing and partly contradictory. I know that many researchers advised against child vaccination, because of the unknowns and the low risk for the children from the disease in the first place. "Making them work at all takes a huge level of understanding." It does, but it would be news to me, that the immune system is completely understood. Even less the immune system and long term effects of a immune system that is developing. It was cutting edge research and to my understanding it was more of: this might work. And it did and unlike the anti vaxx crowd told us, apparently we did not die from it, nor were there mass severe long term damages to be found. But there was damage, some likely did in fact die from the vaccines and so it is not a 100% clear obvious decision. It might have been for you, that is allright and it was allright for me, but for my infant children I did not feel like making that experiment.
        realjhol 4y ago
        Completely agree. Also we who were called "anti-vax", were not actually anti vaccine. We were just skeptical that these vaccines were all they were cracked up to be, and wanted choice an freedom to make our own decisions without coercion. To call us anti-vax was a deliberate smear and a straw-man, of our (now vindicated) concerns.

realjhol 4y ago

[flagged]

blumomo 4y ago
Why in 2023 people still believe that C19 mRNA prevents infecting others? This myth has long been classified as wrong (unlike advertised in the beginning of its rollout)
- knaik94 4y ago
  If you don't become infected, you can't infect others. The vaccine reduces the chances of you become sick with covid.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597 "Although vaccination still lowers the risk of infection, similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons who are infected with the delta variant call into question the degree to which vaccination prevents transmission." Not to dispute your claim, but to put it into context. But apart from that, I am out of this debate.
  - grjdiofgeriov 4y ago
    If you don't know you are infected, you increase the risk of infecting others. As we know, the primary effect of the various vaccines was to reduce the incidences of symptomatic covid. "Becoming sick with Covid" and "becoming infected with Covid" are very different things.
- Avamander 4y ago
  It's just that the nuance is often ignored in the initial saying. Why do people try to debunk something out of a game of telephone instead on restoring the original information. Point has always been that people who are less ill, less severely ill, for a shorter duration, with fewer or no symptoms, have lower chances of infecting others. The urge to simplify is great but it causes these weird discussions like "does the vaccine prevent (all) infection" or like what we have here.
  - fdschoeneman 4y ago
    I understand why Biden, his administration, fauci and the CDC lied. The telephone game effect is real. And sometimes lies are well I intentioned, if stupid. But that doesn't change the fact that they all lied to us.
  - therealdrag0 4y ago
    Do you have a good source on the “less I’ll less duration less spread” angle. A friend was just arguing with me recently about how ineffectual the vaccine was. So a good nuanced source would be helpful.
  - Izkata 4y ago
    > Point has always been that people who are less ill, less severely ill, for a shorter duration, with fewer or no symptoms, have lower chances of infecting others. The most recent research on the types of antibodies the vaccines create vs natural infection are showing the opposite: it causes our bodies to treat the virus more like an allergy, reducing the symptoms while clearing the infection much slower. This gives more chance to infect others, not less.
- yucky 4y ago
  > Why in 2023 people still believe that C19 mRNA prevents infecting others? Because the Director of the CDC and the President of the United States have both at several times made this claim publicly. The fact that we now know they were lying is why we're in this situation to begin with.
  - Izkata 4y ago
    > The fact that we now know Some of us knew they were lying from the start and had a very frustrating few years: Pfizer made no claims about infection/transmission, just symptoms, because they never tested for infection/transmission. That claim popped up out of nowhere a few months after the vaccines were available.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  > Why in 2023 people still believe that C19 mRNA prevents infecting others? This myth has long been classified as wrong Because it does. Your chances of getting and spreading COVID for the 3 months after you get a vaccine drop dramatically.
maxerickson 4y ago
The vaccines are less risky than infection for children even though the risks from infection are low. Are you somehow assuming that they aren't ever going to get infected?
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "The vaccines are less risky than infection for children" Can you back up that claim with long term studies?
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    I mean, you can't back up the converse with long terms studies either. Just infer the very reasonable "based on the information available". And it's not like the vaccines are a complete unknown. Making them work at all takes a huge level of understanding.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      I know, that is my point. Parenting is a juggling of risks. "based on the information available" And the information avaiable is confusing and partly contradictory. I know that many researchers advised against child vaccination, because of the unknowns and the low risk for the children from the disease in the first place. "Making them work at all takes a huge level of understanding." It does, but it would be news to me, that the immune system is completely understood. Even less the immune system and long term effects of a immune system that is developing. It was cutting edge research and to my understanding it was more of: this might work. And it did and unlike the anti vaxx crowd told us, apparently we did not die from it, nor were there mass severe long term damages to be found. But there was damage, some likely did in fact die from the vaccines and so it is not a 100% clear obvious decision. It might have been for you, that is allright and it was allright for me, but for my infant children I did not feel like making that experiment.
      - realjhol 4y ago
        Completely agree. Also we who were called "anti-vax", were not actually anti vaccine. We were just skeptical that these vaccines were all they were cracked up to be, and wanted choice an freedom to make our own decisions without coercion. To call us anti-vax was a deliberate smear and a straw-man, of our (now vindicated) concerns.