When you say prevented transmission, is it your belief that medics(chemists whatever) were suggesting that it would 100% stop you from being infected with Covid??
The director of the CDC claimed that the vaccine would prevent transmission as did many others. âThe virus stops with you.â You can infer whatever you want into those words.
1 Like
Okey
I donât think any vaccine has ever claimed to be 100% effective, it would have been unusual to make that claim for one which was rushed out.
My understanding and I had many conversations about it with real people in the real world who seemed to share it, was that âprevent transmissionâ meant that it would prevent some, not all transmission.
Thatâs a bit of a naive view if you donât mind me saying
Seat belts prevent deaths.
That does not mean seat belts are 100% effective at preventing death.
In your world, by your logic, seat belts are useless.
1 Like
This is outstanding
3 Likes
The pandemic that never stops giving.
1 Like
You are wasting your breath. You are dealing, nearly whole part, with childish absolutists who cannot grasp nuance. Some of them are simply plain stupid and think being contrarian makes them a bit smarter. If the government dictated that no one could wear a mask, the same clowns would be going around in a mask 24/7. They just have never grown up.
No one ever said â except in error â vaccines are 100% effective. What the vaccines in essence did was prevent someone getting infected or lowered the viral load of the particular infection, thereby making the infection both less dangerous to the person infected and to anyone to whom infection was passed. This concept is not hard to grasp â unless you were a right wing loolah long before Covid appeared, meaning that Covid became yet another version of a Masonic handshake for loolah right wing personality alibi merchants.
I could listen to points about Big Pharma if the people who typically make that noise were not the same people quite happy to see the planet plundered by Big Energy. People who grow histrionic about Pzifer, say, seem oddly unperturbed by Shell Global. You have loolahs so stupid that they are simultaneously against Big Pharma and for the Great Barrington Declaration. TFK is fascinating for disclosing how irrational and stupid so many people are.
There were decent reasons to be cautious about the vaccines. Who wants to take a vaccine other than out of necessity? Certainly not me. But life for sensible people does not occur in a black and white absolutist universe. There are difficult decisions to be taken and governments have to make them. The vaccines were a necessary cavil for normal lifeâs resumption. The âeveryone should have been let get Covidâ merchants are just inane â at best. I admire people who were able to do without a vaccine due to lifestyle and personal circumstances. But this option could neve have been scaled up for the billions involved. There is no way around this recognition.
Here lies another aspect: when I see loathsome individuals such as Laurence Fox, Gemma OâDoherty, Allison Pearson, John Waters, Toby Young et al on a particular side, I immediately go to the other side. There is, in most things, a question of taste. A common trait in stupid people? Vulgarity.
There is no entity so bitter as a stupid person whose ego got bruised by being wrong. That these clowns are still at the King Canute act on TFK three years later is daft and coldly hilarious.
Horsebox is real.
Youâre the one that has introduced the 100% effective bit, Iâve never said that that was being claimed. The CDC and many others claimed initially that the âvaccine prevented transmissionâ. If you want to argue that everyone shouldâve interpreted that to mean it doesnât prevent transmission then you are free to make that argument. Judging by infection rates in this country and vaccination rates I would say itâs a good bit below any 100% effectiveness threshold when talking about transmission.
4 Likes
Yeah. That makes sense. She said 100% but the public surely should have known that â100%â is common parlance for 'completely useless â
1 Like
Like all vaccines it can be stated with absolute certainty that it works, and it doesnât work.
Everybody who was half informed knows and knew that it wouldnât work on everybody, id say the average intelligence on this forum is quite high so youâd assume that nobody would take âprevents transmissionâ to mean that it worked for everybody
On what basis do you claim the vaccines are âcompletely uselessâ? What are your factual/scientific grounds for making that â100%â claim?
Because there is a large question to be answered, if the vaccines are completely useless, as to how we are still not stuck in some form of lockdown. Agreeing or disagreeing with lockdown-centred measures is, by the way, an entirely separate question.
I think you should recall that you gave countless hours boning up on virology â or thought you were doing so â and yet did not manage, rather oddly, to grasp the most basic aspect of a pandemic: that a pandemic recedes by a virus variant becoming more contagious and notably less dangerous. If memory serves, you were one of the main people who initially scoffed at the very idea of virus variants. Would being so wrong about virology in so many fashions along the way not disquiet you?
Lockdowns were implemented by governments. Your notion that theyâre inextricably linked to vaccines is arbritary
Are we questioning the belief or the assertion here? My understanding is that the assertion was pushed. CNN reported that the vaccine stopped transmission⌠Thatâs one of the worldâs largest news outlets pushing people towards an untested vaccine that we now know the majority didnât need
Iâm not sure what you mean with your first sentence but on the rest there have been claims on here that nobody ever claimed anyone said the vaccine would prevent transmission. That is not true is all Iâm saying. You are arguing that everyone shouldâve known that when they said that they meant that it is not 100% effective which is fine but they still said that the vaccine prevented transmission. How people should have interpreted those statements is a different conversation. If itâs not 100% effective what figure would you put on it in relation to transmission? 95? 90?
1 Like
Does anyone have that fauci montageâŚthe one where he gradually revises the effectiveness feom 100% down to completely useless?
Using words such as âinextricablyâ cuts no ice with me. Those 16 words are just verbiage, with no coherent meaning. Again, as so often, you refuse to answer a straight and plain question. I infer giving a answer would make you uncomfortable.
I will put the same question once more: on what factual/scientific basis do you assert Covid vaccines are âcompletely uselessâ?
Do not answer, by all means. I am happy to accept silence as a âNo basisâ answer.
Agreed, but itâs your precise argument- lockdowns ended because of vaccines.
Except where they didnât have lockdowns i suppose.
To be honest I genuinely thought it was accepted at this stage that vaccines had very little effect on transmission but had been proved very effective at reducing serious illness especially among older people.
Was the entire reason we had vaccine passes etc not they vaccine prevented transmission?
Did it or not?
Surely thereâs fairly definitive stats on how effective it was at lowering transmission rates at this stage?