3 ms·

I think if the vaccine decreased the severity and mortality rates of the disease it targets, we absolutely would call it a win. Flu vaccine. I'm talking about

I think if the vaccine decreased the severity and mortality rates of the disease it targets, we absolutely would call it a win. Flu vaccine. I'm talking about the flu vaccine.

scarface_74 3y ago
I agree and I said as much. I am arguing more about definitions and marketing than anything else that led to skepticism. Besides the looney bins, very few were anti vax about the traditional vaccines we all had to get to attend school. We saw those as effective to prevent the diseases they were meant to. I was first in line when it came to Covid “vaccines” and kept up to date with boosters because I knew even the common cold can trigger my overactive immune system/asthma. I’ve had Covid twice and I was coughing for a couple of weeks. It was more irritating than anything else. I attribute my not having a more severe reaction to the vaccines. It probably wouldn’t have been that bad with the other preventive asthma meds I take now. But the marketing by the government behind the vaccines and the early suppression by the government and the tech industry of information about the long term effectiveness has set us back.
- sunshinesnacks 3y ago
  Sounds like you are moving the goalposts from “it doesn’t help at all (after 9 months) and isn’t even a vaccine” to “there was poor government marketing and tech industry actions were bad”, which are very different things. I think that downplaying the benefits of the vaccines is somewhere between uninformed and irresponsible. I don’t care nearly as much about criticism of government commas and the tech industry.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    You mean when I said in my original post > But, I think it was a disservice to call something a vaccine It was a severe disservice because it increased skepticism and reduced uptake > I think that downplaying the benefits of the vaccines is somewhere between uninformed and irresponsible What part do you disagree with? Even the pro-vaccine side which I’m one of says effectiveness declines to near zero after six to nine months without a booster. > I don’t care nearly as much about criticism of government commas and the tech industry. You should care because they are a major cause of the anti-vaxxers and causing people to die and be hospitalized unnecessarily because of ineffective messaging
    - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
      I’m not sure we are having a productive conversation about the word “vaccine” or vaccine effectiveness, so I don’t have anything else to add there. When I said I don’t care as much about criticism of government comms (commas was a typo) and the tech industry, I meant I’m not too concerned that you are criticizing them. I don’t think I fully agree with you, but I don’t feel strongly enough that I would have replied to your comment if that was all it appeared to be about.

I think if the vaccine decreased the severity and mortality rates of the disease it targets, we absolutely would call it a win. Flu vaccine. I'm talking about the flu vaccine.

scarface_74 3y ago

I agree and I said as much. I am arguing more about definitions and marketing than anything else that led to skepticism. Besides the looney bins, very few were anti vax about the traditional vaccines we all had to get to attend school. We saw those as effective to prevent the diseases they were meant to. I was first in line when it came to Covid “vaccines” and kept up to date with boosters because I knew even the common cold can trigger my overactive immune system/asthma. I’ve had Covid twice and I was coughing for a couple of weeks. It was more irritating than anything else. I attribute my not having a more severe reaction to the vaccines. It probably wouldn’t have been that bad with the other preventive asthma meds I take now. But the marketing by the government behind the vaccines and the early suppression by the government and the tech industry of information about the long term effectiveness has set us back.

sunshinesnacks 3y ago
Sounds like you are moving the goalposts from “it doesn’t help at all (after 9 months) and isn’t even a vaccine” to “there was poor government marketing and tech industry actions were bad”, which are very different things. I think that downplaying the benefits of the vaccines is somewhere between uninformed and irresponsible. I don’t care nearly as much about criticism of government commas and the tech industry.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  You mean when I said in my original post > But, I think it was a disservice to call something a vaccine It was a severe disservice because it increased skepticism and reduced uptake > I think that downplaying the benefits of the vaccines is somewhere between uninformed and irresponsible What part do you disagree with? Even the pro-vaccine side which I’m one of says effectiveness declines to near zero after six to nine months without a booster. > I don’t care nearly as much about criticism of government commas and the tech industry. You should care because they are a major cause of the anti-vaxxers and causing people to die and be hospitalized unnecessarily because of ineffective messaging
  - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
    I’m not sure we are having a productive conversation about the word “vaccine” or vaccine effectiveness, so I don’t have anything else to add there. When I said I don’t care as much about criticism of government comms (commas was a typo) and the tech industry, I meant I’m not too concerned that you are criticizing them. I don’t think I fully agree with you, but I don’t feel strongly enough that I would have replied to your comment if that was all it appeared to be about.