4 ms·

I feel this way about the vaccine. “95% effective at preventing infection” etc etc. I really believed it would stop transmission which we also know now is not t

I feel this way about the vaccine. “95% effective at preventing infection” etc etc. I really believed it would stop transmission which we also know now is not true. Should have been more skeptical. And before you say “that was before variants” remember that wasn’t the messaging. The message was “it’s safe and effective and protects others” and also “employer: based on what the CDC says take the vaccine or lose your job” A lot of damaged trust in institutions these last few years.

galaxyLogic 4y ago
I would say what NIH put out may have been "propaganda". But propaganda for a good reason: Saving the civilization. Think Will Smith/I am a Legend. So far we know that vaccines did very little harm and very much saved lives. And they saved lives because many people believed what NIH was saying. In other words they made a good effort in good faith. Of course if they go too inaccurate they will lose their credibility which is not good. So why would they do so, I think they didn't.
- omginternets 4y ago
  >Think Will Smith/I am a Legend. Certainly there was great cause for concern and need for prudence in the early days of the pandemic, but COVID-19 was never an end-of-the-world scenario. Your appeal to I am Legend reinforces the parent's argument. >So far we know that vaccines did very little harm and very much saved lives. And they saved lives because many people believed what NIH was saying. In other words they made a good effort in good faith. You are begging the question: did the benefits outweigh the cost? To answer this, we need good data, unencumbered scientific debate, and time. There is reason to suspect at least some of the data and processes used to authorize vaccines were of poor quality, or perhaps even subverted; it is hopefully clear that scientific debate is more restricted than usual; and, we have not had time to observe any long-term effects of vaccines, especially on populations for which the risk of COVID-19 is extremely small (e.g. children). There is a vast middle-ground between anti-vaxxer and vax-maximalist that a reasonable and prudent person can occupy. >Of course if they go too inaccurate they will lose their credibility which is not good. So why would they do so, I think they didn't. You are presupposing that our institutions are rational actors, and that they are acting deliberately. Institutions can fail to perform their essential functions without malice. A conspiracy is not required for a more-dangerous-than-COVID vaccine policy to have taken place. Whether or not this actually happened is a matter of nuanced debate.
  - galaxyLogic 4y ago
    > You are begging the question: did the benefits outweigh the cost? Certainly a retrospective is needed, I assume somebody is doing it. But even if it turned out that benefits did not outweigh the cost, that was unknowable at the beginning of the pandemic. Therefore it was prudent and wise to err on the side of caution. Hindsight is 20-20. We know and knew that vaccines work. Vaccines save lives. That fact has not changed because of Covid has it? In the US > 1 million people died because of Covid. Most of them unvaccinated. Without vaccines it could have been millions more deaths. And with less anti-vaccine propaganda, and better pro-vaccine propaganda, it would probably been many fewer deaths. So rather than simply pondering (and suggesting) the question of whether "benefits outweighed the cost" we need to also consider the alternative-cost. How many more would have, or could have, died without the vaccines?
    - omginternets 4y ago
      >So rather than simply pondering (and suggesting) the question of whether "benefits outweighed the cost" we need to also consider the alternative-cost. How many more would have, or could have, died without the vaccines? Agreed. But you are not actually speaking to my point. My point is that you cannot assert the vaccines were net-positive at this time.
      - galaxyLogic 4y ago
        I think there is clear evidence about the benefits of Covid vaccines and very little evidence of their negative effects. There are both of course but the scientific and medical communities must provide their recommendations after weighing on the pros and cons. Now of course I could neglect their advise, and adopt your, or anybody else's advise instead, if you have one. Would that make much sense to me? Who's advise should I follow? Those who suggested that "injecting bleach" might kill the virus. I think I BETTER follow the advise of the established medical and scientific community. I can't prove to you they are 100% correct all of the time. But it makes rational sense to me and everybody to follow their advise, rather than any random layman's advise out there. The clear evidence about benefits of Covid-vaccines to me is that most of the million+ people who died of Covid were unvaccinated and many more millions of people who were vaccinated did not die or get seriously ill. So how many millions of people did get bad side-effects from the vaccine? I haven't seen that number, was it in the millions? But millions of people did get bad "side effects" (they died) from following the advise of those who told them to be afraid of the vaccine, to treat the pandemic as a "democratic hoax".
SantalBlush 4y ago
- mberning 4y ago
  The fact that people turn to sophistry in defense of valid criticisms is evidence enough that people were mislead. Never mind whether it was intentional or out of ignorance. 95% effective at what? Preventing death? Preventing serious disease? Preventing spread? Preventing variants? The truth has come out and it was far from "95% effective" at anything.
  - shakezula 4y ago
    It’s not sophistry to point out that someone has unrealistic expectations. Furthermore, you can’t ask yourself a bunch of questions and then ignorantly answer them all with “no” when vaccine efficacy studies set a clear definition of “effective”.
    - omginternets 4y ago
      It's not 95% effective, though. > vaccine efficacy studies set a clear definition of “effective”. Those definitions changed after it became clear that the original definitions -- those on the basis of which the vaccines were authorized, and people pressured into obtaining them -- were not met. If anyone had unrealistic expectations, it was policy-makers.
  - wellthatsawrap1 4y ago
    How about 95% lies!
    - shakezula 4y ago
      This is great if you want a catchy slogan, not so great if you’re interested in really any honest discussion.
      - 4y ago
shakezula 4y ago
> believed it would stop transmission It did lower transmission. Multiple studies confirmed this. > remember that wasn’t the messaging Yes, it wasn’t, because it’s generally considered bad practice to attempt to predict the future, and if they had you’d be complaining about them attempting to predict the future. > the message was “it’s safe and effective and protects others” All of the data agrees with this statement. > A lot of damaged trust in institutions these last few years Yes, I wonder why that is
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wellthatsawrap1 4y ago
  > Yes I wonder why that is Because they lied to us.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    Would you consider that this could be the goal of ongoing hostile intelligence operations?
    - pstuart 4y ago
      Divided we fall.
    - jessaustin 4y ago
      Very possible that CIA, NED, etc. played a role, but they didn't benefit from vaccine sales nearly as much as the pharma firms did.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  This is a strong argument for honest messaging which includes the appropriate caveats
themitigating 4y ago
The damage and trust lost was caused more by opportunistic politicans and mentally ill people than anything done by "institutions" assuming you mean Pfizer.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think institutions in this sense means the CDC,Who, and various governments
jjulius 4y ago
>I feel this way about the vaccine. “95% effective at preventing infection” etc etc. I really believed it would stop transmission which we also know now is not true. The messaging was always that it would reduce the severity of the infection, not that it would stop transmission.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > not that it would stop transmission. Oh yes it was, that was certainly a big component of the messaging. How can you be so cruel? Take it for grandma.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjulius 4y ago
    Manufacturers, CDC, etc. were explicitly clear about the difference between preventing infection and preventing severe illness upfront. If you heard, "How can you be so cruel? Take it for grandma," and went along with it thinking that that meant transmission is prevented, then you received that "message" from someone who - for lack of a better phrase here - was not an "official" messenger and/or was speaking out of ignorance, and you then opted to read no further into the accuracy of that statement yourself.
  - potta_coffee 4y ago
    There are countless videos out there of officials touting that "the vaccinated do not transmit covid" but not that the goalposts have shifted, we're supposed to forget all about it.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      >... officials... Does "officials" mean the manufacturers and the bodies that approved the vaccines for use? Or does it mean politicians who spoke out of ignorance and/or opportunism?

galaxyLogic 4y ago

I would say what NIH put out may have been "propaganda". But propaganda for a good reason: Saving the civilization. Think Will Smith/I am a Legend. So far we know that vaccines did very little harm and very much saved lives. And they saved lives because many people believed what NIH was saying. In other words they made a good effort in good faith. Of course if they go too inaccurate they will lose their credibility which is not good. So why would they do so, I think they didn't.

omginternets 4y ago
>Think Will Smith/I am a Legend. Certainly there was great cause for concern and need for prudence in the early days of the pandemic, but COVID-19 was never an end-of-the-world scenario. Your appeal to I am Legend reinforces the parent's argument. >So far we know that vaccines did very little harm and very much saved lives. And they saved lives because many people believed what NIH was saying. In other words they made a good effort in good faith. You are begging the question: did the benefits outweigh the cost? To answer this, we need good data, unencumbered scientific debate, and time. There is reason to suspect at least some of the data and processes used to authorize vaccines were of poor quality, or perhaps even subverted; it is hopefully clear that scientific debate is more restricted than usual; and, we have not had time to observe any long-term effects of vaccines, especially on populations for which the risk of COVID-19 is extremely small (e.g. children). There is a vast middle-ground between anti-vaxxer and vax-maximalist that a reasonable and prudent person can occupy. >Of course if they go too inaccurate they will lose their credibility which is not good. So why would they do so, I think they didn't. You are presupposing that our institutions are rational actors, and that they are acting deliberately. Institutions can fail to perform their essential functions without malice. A conspiracy is not required for a more-dangerous-than-COVID vaccine policy to have taken place. Whether or not this actually happened is a matter of nuanced debate.
- galaxyLogic 4y ago
  > You are begging the question: did the benefits outweigh the cost? Certainly a retrospective is needed, I assume somebody is doing it. But even if it turned out that benefits did not outweigh the cost, that was unknowable at the beginning of the pandemic. Therefore it was prudent and wise to err on the side of caution. Hindsight is 20-20. We know and knew that vaccines work. Vaccines save lives. That fact has not changed because of Covid has it? In the US > 1 million people died because of Covid. Most of them unvaccinated. Without vaccines it could have been millions more deaths. And with less anti-vaccine propaganda, and better pro-vaccine propaganda, it would probably been many fewer deaths. So rather than simply pondering (and suggesting) the question of whether "benefits outweighed the cost" we need to also consider the alternative-cost. How many more would have, or could have, died without the vaccines?
  - omginternets 4y ago
    >So rather than simply pondering (and suggesting) the question of whether "benefits outweighed the cost" we need to also consider the alternative-cost. How many more would have, or could have, died without the vaccines? Agreed. But you are not actually speaking to my point. My point is that you cannot assert the vaccines were net-positive at this time.
    - galaxyLogic 4y ago
      I think there is clear evidence about the benefits of Covid vaccines and very little evidence of their negative effects. There are both of course but the scientific and medical communities must provide their recommendations after weighing on the pros and cons. Now of course I could neglect their advise, and adopt your, or anybody else's advise instead, if you have one. Would that make much sense to me? Who's advise should I follow? Those who suggested that "injecting bleach" might kill the virus. I think I BETTER follow the advise of the established medical and scientific community. I can't prove to you they are 100% correct all of the time. But it makes rational sense to me and everybody to follow their advise, rather than any random layman's advise out there. The clear evidence about benefits of Covid-vaccines to me is that most of the million+ people who died of Covid were unvaccinated and many more millions of people who were vaccinated did not die or get seriously ill. So how many millions of people did get bad side-effects from the vaccine? I haven't seen that number, was it in the millions? But millions of people did get bad "side effects" (they died) from following the advise of those who told them to be afraid of the vaccine, to treat the pandemic as a "democratic hoax".

SantalBlush 4y ago

mberning 4y ago
The fact that people turn to sophistry in defense of valid criticisms is evidence enough that people were mislead. Never mind whether it was intentional or out of ignorance. 95% effective at what? Preventing death? Preventing serious disease? Preventing spread? Preventing variants? The truth has come out and it was far from "95% effective" at anything.
- shakezula 4y ago
  It’s not sophistry to point out that someone has unrealistic expectations. Furthermore, you can’t ask yourself a bunch of questions and then ignorantly answer them all with “no” when vaccine efficacy studies set a clear definition of “effective”.
  - omginternets 4y ago
    It's not 95% effective, though. > vaccine efficacy studies set a clear definition of “effective”. Those definitions changed after it became clear that the original definitions -- those on the basis of which the vaccines were authorized, and people pressured into obtaining them -- were not met. If anyone had unrealistic expectations, it was policy-makers.
- wellthatsawrap1 4y ago
  How about 95% lies!
  - shakezula 4y ago
    This is great if you want a catchy slogan, not so great if you’re interested in really any honest discussion.
    - 4y ago

shakezula 4y ago

> believed it would stop transmission It did lower transmission. Multiple studies confirmed this. > remember that wasn’t the messaging Yes, it wasn’t, because it’s generally considered bad practice to attempt to predict the future, and if they had you’d be complaining about them attempting to predict the future. > the message was “it’s safe and effective and protects others” All of the data agrees with this statement. > A lot of damaged trust in institutions these last few years Yes, I wonder why that is

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wellthatsawrap1 4y ago
> Yes I wonder why that is Because they lied to us.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  Would you consider that this could be the goal of ongoing hostile intelligence operations?
  - pstuart 4y ago
    Divided we fall.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    Very possible that CIA, NED, etc. played a role, but they didn't benefit from vaccine sales nearly as much as the pharma firms did.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
This is a strong argument for honest messaging which includes the appropriate caveats

themitigating 4y ago

The damage and trust lost was caused more by opportunistic politicans and mentally ill people than anything done by "institutions" assuming you mean Pfizer.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think institutions in this sense means the CDC,Who, and various governments

jjulius 4y ago

>I feel this way about the vaccine. “95% effective at preventing infection” etc etc. I really believed it would stop transmission which we also know now is not true. The messaging was always that it would reduce the severity of the infection, not that it would stop transmission.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> not that it would stop transmission. Oh yes it was, that was certainly a big component of the messaging. How can you be so cruel? Take it for grandma.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jjulius 4y ago
  Manufacturers, CDC, etc. were explicitly clear about the difference between preventing infection and preventing severe illness upfront. If you heard, "How can you be so cruel? Take it for grandma," and went along with it thinking that that meant transmission is prevented, then you received that "message" from someone who - for lack of a better phrase here - was not an "official" messenger and/or was speaking out of ignorance, and you then opted to read no further into the accuracy of that statement yourself.
- potta_coffee 4y ago
  There are countless videos out there of officials touting that "the vaccinated do not transmit covid" but not that the goalposts have shifted, we're supposed to forget all about it.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    >... officials... Does "officials" mean the manufacturers and the bodies that approved the vaccines for use? Or does it mean politicians who spoke out of ignorance and/or opportunism?