4 ms·

This was unambiguously the right thing to do, if you refused to vaccinate you should not have been in public spaces at the height of the pandemic, period.

by myko 4y ago

Izkata 4y ago
It was never the "right thing to do" because there was never evidence these vaccinations prevented infection/transmission. Even if they did work for that, restricting human rights was still not the right thing to do.
- myko 4y ago
  You claim there is no evidence the vaccinations prevent infections or reduce transmission? That would mean the vaccines are completely ineffective. You are getting your information from a bad source. > restricting human rights was still not the right thing to do. This is something worth debating, but if you refuse to concede the vaccines are useful then it isn't worth getting to that point in the debate.
  - Izkata 4y ago
    > You claim there is no evidence the vaccinations prevent infections or reduce transmission? That would mean the vaccines are completely ineffective. Wrong. The evidence is that they suppressed symptoms, which people misunderstood as preventing infection/transmission.
    - myko 4y ago
      Where did you see that? It is incorrect, and dangerous disinformation to spread. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/12/424546/covid-19-vaccines-prior-infection-reduce-transmission-omicron https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/12/424546/covid-19-vaccines-p... https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298 https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0 The reality is the vaccines do reduce transmission, just not as much as hoped. They are very effective at preventing infection, though that immunity wanes over time (just as immunity from infection does), but it does continue to help prevent serious illness from occurring.
      - Izkata 4y ago
        Take a close look at the dates on all of your links, then read this whole thread again.
        myko 4y ago
        The vaccines were shown to reduce infection rates, which will reduce transmission. This was known in the trials used to gain emergency use, though reduction of transmission specifically was not part of the studies, it was understood that because infection rates were reduced they would reduce transmission. The subsequent results confirm that. That said, it sounds like you are conceding the point that the vaccines reduce transmission and are effective at preventing illness, which is good, and contradicts your earlier statements: > there was never evidence these vaccinations prevented infection/transmission. > The evidence is that they suppressed symptoms, which people misunderstood as preventing infection/transmission (emphasis added by me)
        Izkata 4y ago
        > This was known in the trials used to gain emergency use, though reduction of transmission specifically was not part of the studies, it was understood that because infection rates were reduced they would reduce transmission. Pfizer's press release very specifically did not say that. They correctly distinguished between SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) and COVID-19 (the disease caused by the virus), only claiming a reduction with the second and making no claims about the first. They avoided making any claims there because they did not test for the virus until after symptoms developed, making it impossible to make any claims about infection/transmission. It was well-known for a month or two after the announcement, after which it got memory-holed hard: https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/12/02/covid-19-vaccines-may-not-prevent-spread-of-virus-so-mask-wearing-other-protections-still-critical/ https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/12/02/covid-19-vaccines... https://www.businessinsider.com/who-says-no-evidence-coronavirus-vaccine-prevent-transmissions-2020-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/who-says-no-evidence-coronav... https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2020/12/covid-19-vaccines-transmission.html https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2020/12/covid-... > That said, it sounds like you are conceding the point that the vaccines reduce transmission and are effective at preventing illness, which is good, and contradicts your earlier statements: I stand by what I said. Note the timeline and that I used "was". The whole argument was about 2021 and early 2022, then you argued otherwise using evidence we only had in late 2022 and 2023.

This was unambiguously the right thing to do, if you refused to vaccinate you should not have been in public spaces at the height of the pandemic, period.

by myko 4y ago

This was unambiguously the right thing to do, if you refused to vaccinate you should not have been in public spaces at the height of the pandemic, period.

Izkata 4y ago

It was never the "right thing to do" because there was never evidence these vaccinations prevented infection/transmission. Even if they did work for that, restricting human rights was still not the right thing to do.

myko 4y ago
You claim there is no evidence the vaccinations prevent infections or reduce transmission? That would mean the vaccines are completely ineffective. You are getting your information from a bad source. > restricting human rights was still not the right thing to do. This is something worth debating, but if you refuse to concede the vaccines are useful then it isn't worth getting to that point in the debate.
- Izkata 4y ago
  > You claim there is no evidence the vaccinations prevent infections or reduce transmission? That would mean the vaccines are completely ineffective. Wrong. The evidence is that they suppressed symptoms, which people misunderstood as preventing infection/transmission.
  - myko 4y ago
    Where did you see that? It is incorrect, and dangerous disinformation to spread. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/12/424546/covid-19-vaccines-prior-infection-reduce-transmission-omicron https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/12/424546/covid-19-vaccines-p... https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298 https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0 The reality is the vaccines do reduce transmission, just not as much as hoped. They are very effective at preventing infection, though that immunity wanes over time (just as immunity from infection does), but it does continue to help prevent serious illness from occurring.
    - Izkata 4y ago
      Take a close look at the dates on all of your links, then read this whole thread again.
      - myko 4y ago
        The vaccines were shown to reduce infection rates, which will reduce transmission. This was known in the trials used to gain emergency use, though reduction of transmission specifically was not part of the studies, it was understood that because infection rates were reduced they would reduce transmission. The subsequent results confirm that. That said, it sounds like you are conceding the point that the vaccines reduce transmission and are effective at preventing illness, which is good, and contradicts your earlier statements: > there was never evidence these vaccinations prevented infection/transmission. > The evidence is that they suppressed symptoms, which people misunderstood as preventing infection/transmission (emphasis added by me)
        Izkata 4y ago
        > This was known in the trials used to gain emergency use, though reduction of transmission specifically was not part of the studies, it was understood that because infection rates were reduced they would reduce transmission. Pfizer's press release very specifically did not say that. They correctly distinguished between SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) and COVID-19 (the disease caused by the virus), only claiming a reduction with the second and making no claims about the first. They avoided making any claims there because they did not test for the virus until after symptoms developed, making it impossible to make any claims about infection/transmission. It was well-known for a month or two after the announcement, after which it got memory-holed hard: https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/12/02/covid-19-vaccines-may-not-prevent-spread-of-virus-so-mask-wearing-other-protections-still-critical/ https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/12/02/covid-19-vaccines... https://www.businessinsider.com/who-says-no-evidence-coronavirus-vaccine-prevent-transmissions-2020-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/who-says-no-evidence-coronav... https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2020/12/covid-19-vaccines-transmission.html https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2020/12/covid-... > That said, it sounds like you are conceding the point that the vaccines reduce transmission and are effective at preventing illness, which is good, and contradicts your earlier statements: I stand by what I said. Note the timeline and that I used "was". The whole argument was about 2021 and early 2022, then you argued otherwise using evidence we only had in late 2022 and 2023.