This question goes out those who took the 2 jabs? Will you you take it to get back to normality? Or are you sick of the government moving the goalposts constantly?
Reddit has also been cracking down heavily on misinformation, probably more than boards has been.
They do that.
Probably belongs in the vaccine side effects thread.
I'd PM a mod of the forum and ask. You'll not get a response here.
Excuse me, my comments and the one that was deleted by the moderator were not misinformation by any stretch of your imagination. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my comments.
I'm not certain that Fauci explicitly said that vaccines prevent transmission. I know he said that vaccines make people a "dead end" for the virus, but I believe that he said it in the context of being very hopeful that they prevent transmission, which isn't the same thing. He also said that "there will always be breakthrough infections but that's a very rare event", which as we know is not true, but was probably in accordance with the data at the time. Fauci was also in my head after reading some of his earlier masking advice, but that's another issue. So I'll retract that and just stick with the two you demonstrated yourself (for starters—again, plenty of other examples out there for anyone who cares to do some internet archaeology).
That's a very long, roundabout way of saying that you was mistaken, but I do appreciate that you have the guts to admit you were wrong, even if it took a few posts of asking for you to do it. Would you like to link to some more examples that you suggest exist instead?
In any case, the specific people saying that vaccines prevent infection is largely irrelevant to my original point—that it is misinformation to say "No one has ever claimed it gave immunity from infection." That has been sufficiently demonstrated with examples from the President of the United States and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Why do you believe e.g. Biden said that? Do you think he believed that was true? Do you think he knew it wasn't true but was purposefully lying in the hopes that no one would notice? Do you think he misspoke? Or was he simply exaggerating in a "you're not going to die in a car crash if you wear a seatbelt" kind of way?
If you're leaving for Reddit anyway, would you like to try reposting what you said?
No. I'd like the moderator of which removed my previous comment to add it back to the page it was removed from as the comment word for word would be clear. Ah what's the point. Good luck.
Would you like to link to some more examples that you suggest exist instead?
That is unnecessary, since I have proven my point. Anyone interested can do their own searching.
I don't think it's relevant regardless of why he or anyone else said it.
To go back, my point was and remains that "No one has ever claimed it gave immunity from infection" is an untrue statement. It's misinformation to state it. I've made no additional claims beyond demonstrating that point.
Do you think it's misinformation to say that "No one has ever claimed [the Covid vaccines] gave immunity from infection"?
You should contact a mod then. If it's deleted and you haven't received a message, it's usually because a comment is so obviously misinformation that a comment isn't warranted.
If you don't believe that's the case, contact a mod to find out what happened.
To go back, my point was and remains that "No one has ever claimed it gave immunity from infection" is an untrue statement.
Of course that's an untrue statement. There are nearly 8 billion people on the planet, some of which think crazy things like the Earth is flat or Trump is a good person. At least one person saying something like that isn't particularly shocking.
However, the fact that you don't seem to care about why certain people said it, or the context in which they said it, is interesting. It seems like you just want to demonstrate that some poster you were conversing with before me was wrong, is that right?
The thing is you need to look at the actual data. The promise was that vaccines would 95% effective at preventing serious illness when it comes to Covid. So even for serious illness it was expected that on average the vaccine would be ineffective 5% of the time. And that's before looking at reduced complications from Covid that a vaccine provides. So people were never promised that they would never get Covid.
You need to look at what the actual scientists say not random journalists who have limited expertise. Even for people with expertise you need to look at context. And that goes for everything and not just Covid.
Now will vaccines and boosters end the pandemic they probably will. Look at Ireland current case load compared to hospitalisations and compare to pre vaccination. There is a complete sea change. You can also do similar comparisons to Ireland and places with lower rates of vaccination.
Yes, that's right. I'm not sure why it's "interesting". You seem to spend enough of your own time combating what you believe to be misinformation. Why would you be confused about someone else doing the same?
When you get to the likes of POTUS, CDC director, Rachel Madden and other journos/commentators, I don't think that why someone said it is important. The fact that they said it at all and did so from their huge platforms is, particularly when there is a failure to retract and apologise/explain. Giving people the impression that they cannot be infected by or transmit a pandemic virus after vaccination when that's not true and the pandemic is ongoing is dangerous.
Again—not sure how this relates at all to my post.
Because you're not comparing like with like. You've targeted someone specifically with your misinformation, presumably because of your political beliefs, which is why it is of significance. That form of misinformation is politicising a pandemic.
When you get to the likes of POTUS, CDC director, Rachel Madden and other journos/commentators, I don't think that why someone said it is important.
And, as you said, you don't care about the context either. Why is that?
The fact that they said it at all and did so from their huge platforms is, particularly when there is a failure to retract and apologise/explain. Giving people the impression that they cannot be infected by or transmit a pandemic virus after vaccination when that's not true and the pandemic is ongoing is dangerous.
Hypothetically, let's ignore the context etc. and let's assume that you're right. If what Biden said lead to more people being vaccinated, would that be a good or a bad thing in your mind?
I didn't target someone specifically because of my political beliefs. I posted three names, and was mistaken with one of them. Fauci skirted very close to saying that vaccines prevent transmission, but didn't actually say it. When I realised that, I retracted. You even gave me a backhanded compliment for it.
I didn't say I don't care about context. I very specifically mentioned the context of their huge platforms.
A bad thing. I believe very strongly in informed consent.
Good to see ppl finally accepting that it was a common narrative in the media/public health circuit that these vaccines either prevented transmission or were highly efficacious at same. The vaccines were sold to ppl on a false premise.
I'm double vaccinated but I don't think I'll go for the booster until I need to for vaccine certs (if those will still be a thing by then). I'm early 30s and healthy, the vaccines were originally sold to under 40s to protect others by making it less likely to catch and transmute the virus to others. I don't think is the case anymore, I've probably got about a 1 in 20,000 chance ending up in hospital if u do catch covid so why would or should I want a booster vaccine?
Do you like any of the three people that you used as an example?
Great. Would you like to explain why you posted a link that explains what Rochelle Walensk had said out of context, when I had already posted a link explaining what she had said in context? Why did you go to the bother of finding that link?
Informed consent? Is Biden a doctor? Is Biden giving you the vaccine? A politician told what you believe to be a white lie and thereby saved lives. How do you feel about someone suggesting that bleach would do the trick and would thereby lead to the opposite result, i.e. more deaths?
Regardless, it is clearly the case that Biden was merely exaggerating, given the context.
The media did not suggest vaccines prevented transmission. The media have always stated percentages with regards to transmission and vaccines.
Eh?
That's a very nice contribution to the thread. Would you like to talk about boosters at all?
Where did you get the 1 in 20,000 figure from?
So the President of the US can say whatever he likes and be excused because he “misspoke” and not only that, the person who mentions it has to start reading his mind to make excuses for him? No offence but if I was MT I would bid you goodnight sir and sweet dreams.
Would you like to demonstrate some critical thinking skills by answering my question about bleach, or do you only give off faux outrage when it suits your political beliefs?
Lol. Your post was a little far fetched for me and I was pointing that out. That is, if you (whoever you are) ask for more information and the poster (no matter the reason) chooses not to reply that is defacto misinformation? With respect, don’t flatter yourself.
So that would be a no then. You are only incapable of acknowledging that Trump did the very the same thing except that in his case it would lead to deaths rather than saving lives. You are therefore not angry nor upset in the slightest.
I believe that's now three posts now where you haven't discussed Covid in the Covid forum. Would you like to discuss it now, or would you prefer to return to thinking posts instead?
If it was the latter so what?
btw I have no idea when you previously mentioned bleach and you didn’t answer the question but then maybe you just ask questions.
As explained above. If you're not bothered by that, then you're not bothered by Biden and therefore your posts are pointless.
You literally quoted the only post where I mentioned bleach.
Not particularly. Not enough to give them a pass on using gigantic platforms to spread misinformation, at least. Your mileage may vary.
Apologies. I didn't realise that was what you thought you had done.
What you actually posted was a "fact check" article from August 2021, which takes issue with the way that people were interpreting a side-by-side of Walensky in May 2021 and Walensky in August 2021 to make a point about purposeful narrative manipulation. I happen to agree with the article (thought it strikes me as opinion rather than fact, as so many "fact check" articles do) that there is little sense taking statements that are months apart during a pandemic and blaming the people making the statements for the changing data. But in any case I wasn't making any point about what Walensky said in May 2021 as it compares to August 2021; I was only making the point that someone "official" has ever stated that vaccines prevent infection, which the article I posted more succinctly achieves without obfuscating that proof-of-point by including video material from months later. I don't think that "well here's what she said three months after she said the thing you're referring to" really counts as "context".
Informed consent? Is Biden a doctor? Is Biden giving you the vaccine? A politician told what you believe to be a white lie and thereby saved lives.
Biden is POTUS, and as such has a huge platform. Possibly the biggest in the world. It is my opinion that in that situation, anyone who knowingly gives out inaccurate information is acting immorally. To wit, purposely "exaggerating" is worse than merely being wrong in this situation. Again, YMMV.
How do you feel about someone suggesting that bleach would do the trick and would thereby lead to the opposite result, i.e. more deaths?
It's **** stupid, obviously. But maybe if I liked them and I were a dishonest and highly political person without integrity, I'd be prepared to beclown myself on a public forum by saying that person had a "slip" and was merely referring to hypotheses that Hydrogen Peroxide (a bleach) may have some utility as an adjuvant therapy for Covid-19, at a time when no effective treatments or vaccines were available. I'm not saying that, to be clear—it's obviously a dumb thing to say—but when how much one "likes" a given official is in play, things can get fuzzy fast.
Anyway, I have proven my original point several times over and we're going around in circles here, so I'll leave it there.
People definitely said that vaccines prevent infection. Q.E.D.
Peace.
People definitely said that vaccines prevent infection.
Without wishing to excuse lazy speech or lies, part of the issue here is the difficulty of expressing in terse, plain English the effect of vaccines.
What does "prevent" mean? Stop from happening. That's simple.
But what does "prevent infection" mean? Prevent all infections? Prevent some infections? Prevent some infection within individual bodies (e.g. progression to lower airways)?
As soon as someone attempts to reword the original clinical trial findings there is opportunity for meaning to be lost, deliberately or otherwise, and these conversations take place in a shark pool of people debating in bad faith.
I'm not super happy about these misrepresentations, but in the grand scheme of things, people getting carried away by extrapolating clinical trial results into the future of variants and complex risk compensation behaviours is not even close to the top of my list of stupid **** we've seen in the last two years.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d78fd5f5292e11c2974bcd779ad2a2f0.svg)
