Imprison anyone who refuses the vax!

[dkabq]

Vaccines Never Prevented the Transmission of COVID
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/vaccines-never-prevented-transmission-covid-alex-gutentag

During the Dec. 10, 2020, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) meeting when the first mRNA vaccines were authorized, FDA adviser Dr. Patrick Moore stated, "Pfizer has presented no evidence in its data today that the vaccine has any effect on virus carriage or shedding, which is the fundamental basis for herd immunity." Despite the data presented for individual efficacy, he continued, "we really, as of right now, do not have any evidence that it will have an impact, social-wide, on the epidemic." The FDA EUA press release from December 2020 also confirms that there was no "evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-COV-2 from person to person."

Simply put, the reason many people believed the vaccines stopped transmission was because government officials and media outlets across the Western world were either careless with their words or did not tell the truth. In 2021, for instance, Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Rochelle Walensky claimed that vaccinated people "do not carry the virus," and Dr. Anthony Fauci said they would become "dead ends" for the virus. Any speculation that the vaccines significantly reduced transmission was based on limited results from independent studies and the false assumption that the vaccine would prevent infection. Without adequate evidence, vaccination campaigns called on people to get vaccinated not just for their own protection, but to help "protect others" and "save lives."

[dkabq]

Interesting, but it begs the question of what confounding factors could be contributing to the higher death rate in the unvaccinated? Are they older? Poorer? In worse health? Is there a geographic factor? Previously had covid? I also have to wonder if the deaths are deaths from covid or with covid?

Unfortunately you can't get at the age question from the data available at that site as they only differentiate by all-ages, 50-64, and 65+, at least for the US data. The Swiss data has a full span of age ranges. Clicking through them finds that while there is a trend for higher unvaccinated death rates, the gap between them and the vaccinated shrinks, as does the absolute magnitude of the death rates.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

Moreover, that data does not consider vaccination risks, so it cannot address the question of does the reduction in death from getting vaccinated outweigh the vaccine risks.

[dkabq]

Subclinical Myocarditis - NEW Report from Switzerland - Vital Findings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vveMHtVk_mY

[Kiero]

Interesting, but it begs the question of what confounding factors could be contributing to the higher death rate in the unvaccinated? Are they older? Poorer? In worse health? Is there a geographic factor? Previously had covid? I also have to wonder if the deaths are deaths from covid or with covid?

Unfortunately you can't get at the age question from the data available at that site as they only differentiate by all-ages, 50-64, and 65+, at least for the US data. The Swiss data has a full span of age ranges. Clicking through them finds that while there is a trend for higher unvaccinated death rates, the gap between them and the vaccinated shrinks, as does the absolute magnitude of the death rates.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

Moreover, that data does not consider vaccination risks, so it cannot address the question of does the reduction in death from getting vaccinated outweigh the vaccine risks.

The secret is in the definition. Anyone who had a jab within two weeks of death is called "unvaccinated", rather than being included in the "primary vaccination" group. It's wheeze after sleight of hand after shoddy dodge with everything relating to coronabollocks.

All necessary to uphold the fiction that the sniffles is a deadly disease that threatens us all. Rather than the usual seasonal bugs that only carry off the vulnerable. Before mRNA fucked up healthy people's immune systems, that is.

[Ghostmaker]

The whole argument about vaccination involves herd immunity; effectively 'fencing' a pathogen in so that it can't be transmitted.

If the vaccine does not, in fact, prevent transmission then that argument flies right out the window.

[Horace]

Who here watches Dr. John Campbell on YouTube? He has been going over a lot of Covid-related studies lately and picking them apart. He's constrained by YouTube's benevolent misinformation policies, of course, so all he can do is look at the camera to convey his true thoughts, but what a look he gives when he reads some of these steaming piles of completely fair and unbiased scientific reports.

Most recently he featured a Scottish study on a worrying rise in neo-natal deaths where the authors decided not to divulge the mothers' vaccination status for fear that it might "harm people's confidence in the vaccine." Of course, there was no "public health benefit" to disclosing this information. I'm glad we have rational and completely well-meaning people like this to conduct our most important research and lead our highest institutes. All hail the New World Order!

[KindaMeh]

Vaccines Never Prevented the Transmission of COVID
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/vaccines-never-prevented-transmission-covid-alex-gutentag

During the Dec. 10, 2020, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) meeting when the first mRNA vaccines were authorized, FDA adviser Dr. Patrick Moore stated, "Pfizer has presented no evidence in its data today that the vaccine has any effect on virus carriage or shedding, which is the fundamental basis for herd immunity." Despite the data presented for individual efficacy, he continued, "we really, as of right now, do not have any evidence that it will have an impact, social-wide, on the epidemic." The FDA EUA press release from December 2020 also confirms that there was no "evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-COV-2 from person to person."

Simply put, the reason many people believed the vaccines stopped transmission was because government officials and media outlets across the Western world were either careless with their words or did not tell the truth. In 2021, for instance, Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Rochelle Walensky claimed that vaccinated people "do not carry the virus," and Dr. Anthony Fauci said they would become "dead ends" for the virus. Any speculation that the vaccines significantly reduced transmission was based on limited results from independent studies and the false assumption that the vaccine would prevent infection. Without adequate evidence, vaccination campaigns called on people to get vaccinated not just for their own protection, but to help "protect others" and "save lives."

It's certainly not awe-inspiring. Though studies, especially non-Pfizer ordered studies, have been done since then on vaccination reducing transmission rates, (ex: I remember one right when Delta was coming out as a bigger thing that had even CBS news stating a decreased efficacy in prevention.) they broadly found reduced efficacy with each mutation. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597 and https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298 for example.

Goes to show that killing the virus with herd immunity was never really a legit plan unless either everyone were to be vaccinated immediately and forced to squirrel themselves away like lepers for a bit, or everyone was to be unvaccinated and forced to mingle, thereby getting temporary health edge through exposure, and then again forcing the global economy to grind to a screeching halt through voluntary isolation even were it possible to coordinate everyone in such a weird maneuver. Zero COVID policies on the national level do not work long term anyway because of global factors, and as shown in China, even the most authoritarian overreactions will not stop it through unilateral action by a single country.

I will however acknowledge Trump was right about it having health benefits relative to known side effects. The caveat being the term known, but still admittedly an edge that has yet to be disproven. Still, even there it demonstrably varies what the edge is somewhat by age and preexisting conditions as noted. Younger folks with fewer conditions to weaken them to COVID's impact are less effected, go figure. Even the CDC has had to acknowledge that.

[Mistwell]

The whole argument about vaccination involves herd immunity; effectively 'fencing' a pathogen in so that it can't be transmitted.

If the vaccine does not, in fact, prevent transmission then that argument flies right out the window.

Who cares about arguments? Does it reduce deaths or not? Does it reduce hospitalizations or not? If it does reduce deaths and hospitalizations, then it's doing something good. If it doesn't prevent illness but it does reduce hospitalizations and deaths, then it's doing something good.

I will never understand the "If it's not perfect then it's nothing" mentality. We've seen it throughout covid (if masks don't prevent infection then they do nothing) but we've seen it in other parts of society too. It's a baffling perspective which doesn't match reality about almost anything in life. Reducing harms is a valuable thing, right? Whether it's recycling or eating less meat or watering lawns less or being kinder more often or speeding less or whatever it is in life, harm reduction is a valuable thing even if it's not zero harm.

[Ratman_tf]

Who here watches Dr. John Campbell on YouTube? He has been going over a lot of Covid-related studies lately and picking them apart. He's constrained by YouTube's benevolent misinformation policies, of course, so all he can do is look at the camera to convey his true thoughts, but what a look he gives when he reads some of these steaming piles of completely fair and unbiased scientific reports.

Most recently he featured a Scottish study on a worrying rise in neo-natal deaths where the authors decided not to divulge the mothers' vaccination status for fear that it might "harm people's confidence in the vaccine." Of course, there was no "public health benefit" to disclosing this information. I'm glad we have rational and completely well-meaning people like this to conduct our most important research and lead our highest institutes. All hail the New World Order!

I do. I started watching him when Covid began, got a bit frustrated that he seemed to be parroting a lot of misinformation, and now I'm just sad that a lot of our concerns seem to be valid.

[Ratman_tf]

The whole argument about vaccination involves herd immunity; effectively 'fencing' a pathogen in so that it can't be transmitted.

If the vaccine does not, in fact, prevent transmission then that argument flies right out the window.

Who cares about arguments? Does it reduce deaths or not? Does it reduce hospitalizations or not? If it does reduce deaths and hospitalizations, then it's doing something good. If it doesn't prevent illness but it does reduce hospitalizations and deaths, then it's doing something good.

What are the tradeoffs?  If the vaccines or masks do more harm than they prevent, then we have a problem.

[KindaMeh]

The whole argument about vaccination involves herd immunity; effectively 'fencing' a pathogen in so that it can't be transmitted.

If the vaccine does not, in fact, prevent transmission then that argument flies right out the window.

Who cares about arguments? Does it reduce deaths or not? Does it reduce hospitalizations or not? If it does reduce deaths and hospitalizations, then it's doing something good. If it doesn't prevent illness but it does reduce hospitalizations and deaths, then it's doing something good.

I will never understand the "If it's not perfect then it's nothing" mentality. We've seen it throughout covid (if masks don't prevent infection then they do nothing) but we've seen it in other parts of society too. It's a baffling perspective which doesn't match reality about almost anything in life. Reducing harms is a valuable thing, right? Whether it's recycling or eating less meat or watering lawns less or being kinder more often or speeding less or whatever it is in life, harm reduction is a valuable thing even if it's not zero harm.

First, let me note that I agree that as things stand the balance of evidence tilts towards voluntary vaccines being helpful within society. I don't think Trump was originally wrong to push for their availability, for instance. Though again, that's only with currently known information, and vaccines can do harm as well albeit in less statistically powerful impacts, so if the current balance of evidence changes over the next several decades I'd probably revise my position.

That said, I still care about arguments beyond just whether it helps the individual within the context of arguing for state intervention. Because firstly it can do some harm and is less effective within certain demographics of youth and health with particular risk factors, and though that has mostly been accounted for when deciding whether it may be administered to said demographics, that does not mean members of said demographics do not have the right to assess the risks themselves as well. I don't think vaccines or masks do more harm than they prevent when voluntary, but it's still political discrimination at this point to require them so that you can access public service, necessary goods and services, or even unnecessary goods and services when the issue has been politicized to the degree it has been. It tears society apart, which isn't nothing.

Also, what I think doesn't universally represent what those acting in what they believe are their own best interests, and the best interests for their families may be with respect to masking and vaccination. Even were I more informed, that wouldn't give people like me the right to decide against letting them choose unless we could be sure that beyond any doubt this would save America from an actual catastrophe outweighing the societal strife and economic damage a mandate many wish to avoid complying with would require. Even then, it would need to be Congress, not a CDC with questionable authority according to the courts, doing this as representatives of America's will. Not authoritarian technocracy. Because if people ignore democratic norms and structures to enact what they want over what is legal and the will of the people, democracy loses.

And if respiratory disease fatalities comparable to COVID deaths currently were not reason enough for a mask mandate pre-covid, why should they be post-covid? If the vaccinated have almost 20x less death rates from certain strains of covid, and the base rate was like 1% counting those who don't test or report, then why should .05% of the limited number who contract it dictate the lives, economy and liberties of the other 99.95% of society when they probably would've died to plenty of other easily transmissible illnesses anyway? Policymaking is normative in nature, not based solely on the conclusions of positive science, by definition.

So just knowing that some harm will be prevented, or that on average it will be good for society health-wise, is not enough in and of itself enough to dictate policy, unless the harms of intervention and impacts on non-health factors are also factored in. A policy decision from which also requires calculation within a framework that is not values neutral or "scientifically" constructed.  Part of what's great about a constitutional democracy is that it allows for net values to be weighed, all while protecting core liberties from the tyranny of the majority. So I feel it telling, for instance, that most mandates where I currently reside were enforced not by the local legislature but by potential overreach in emergency powers.

[KindaMeh]

To be clear, if I had to give a friend a recommendation on whether to take a vaccine, I'd probably direct them to health professionals I know on a personal level and trust, and from what I know they'd say go for it. Given what I currently know I'd also say go for it.

I'd say it makes sense to wear a mask if you're feeling sick with a respiratory disease more generally, likewise. Blow your nose into a handkerchief, wash your hands properly after going to the restroom, yada yada.  Maybe even wear a mask if you're visiting somebody especially vulnerable to diseases and you think you MIGHT have one.

But that's different from supporting what the government and many state and local governments have been attempting. For many of the reasons listed in my post above, I do not support such mandates and discriminations. Especially when I factor in how our own more local freedom of religion was more or less stomped on, alongside freedom of assembly, save in such instances as it supported a woke cause the demonstrations for which led to property damage. Even as education became remote and less effective, social isolation and mental health disorders went on the rise, and cetera. I also saw the death of a state economy heavily dependent on tourism, entertainment and out of state spending, the collapse of a strong local performance and in-person arts culture, and more. Unemployment jumped ridiculously high, and we still haven't bounced back fully because a lot of businesses died even with rampant national and local stimulus spending. It wasn't just the virus. Key business sectors for our state and locality were legally not allowed to open because of rules about the number of people in a room or the closing of "non-essential" sectors like religion. While the wearing of masks and vaccine requirements in combination chomped at business visitor numbers even when things "opened up" a bit more.

I think if more people got vaccinated and wore masks it would be good for overall health a smidge, and probably boost our economy by re-enfranchising those people relative to being allowed in certain public spaces. But there's a very real set of reasons why I would never mandate it, and hate that the latter part unrelated to health is even a factor, thanks to government BS.

[Mistwell]

The whole argument about vaccination involves herd immunity; effectively 'fencing' a pathogen in so that it can't be transmitted.

If the vaccine does not, in fact, prevent transmission then that argument flies right out the window.

Who cares about arguments? Does it reduce deaths or not? Does it reduce hospitalizations or not? If it does reduce deaths and hospitalizations, then it's doing something good. If it doesn't prevent illness but it does reduce hospitalizations and deaths, then it's doing something good.

What are the tradeoffs?  If the vaccines or masks do more harm than they prevent, then we have a problem.

Are you seeing high rates of hospitalizations and deaths from masks and vaccines which exceed the savings in hospitalizations and deaths we're getting from masks and vaccines? This is standard cost benefit analysis. 

You don't want a mask or vaccine, I say OK that's your decision. But from the evidence I have seen, masks and vaccines save more lives than they take, and save more hospitalizations than they cause.

[KindaMeh]

The whole argument about vaccination involves herd immunity; effectively 'fencing' a pathogen in so that it can't be transmitted.

If the vaccine does not, in fact, prevent transmission then that argument flies right out the window.

Who cares about arguments? Does it reduce deaths or not? Does it reduce hospitalizations or not? If it does reduce deaths and hospitalizations, then it's doing something good. If it doesn't prevent illness but it does reduce hospitalizations and deaths, then it's doing something good.

What are the tradeoffs?  If the vaccines or masks do more harm than they prevent, then we have a problem.

Are you seeing high rates of hospitalizations and deaths from masks and vaccines which exceed the savings in hospitalizations and deaths we're getting from masks and vaccines? This is standard cost benefit analysis. 

You don't want a mask or vaccine, I say OK that's your decision. But from the evidence I have seen, masks and vaccines save more lives than they take, and save more hospitalizations than they cause.

Okay, from that second sentence I may have misinterpreted your earlier statement in my response, then. I apologize for that. I will also acknowledge that early on in the virus especially, hospital capacities were a real factor behind a lot of the concern. As noted earlier, I think if people want to get vaccinated that's great. I just also think there's perhaps a moral obligation to vocally stand against many if not most of the government actions and mandates that have come into play over the past two years. And the societal villainization in parts of our nation of those who make different health choices in good faith. Hence me saying what I did, and supporting the point of view that I do.

[dkabq]

The whole argument about vaccination involves herd immunity; effectively 'fencing' a pathogen in so that it can't be transmitted.

If the vaccine does not, in fact, prevent transmission then that argument flies right out the window.

Who cares about arguments? Does it reduce deaths or not? Does it reduce hospitalizations or not? If it does reduce deaths and hospitalizations, then it's doing something good. If it doesn't prevent illness but it does reduce hospitalizations and deaths, then it's doing something good.

What are the tradeoffs?  If the vaccines or masks do more harm than they prevent, then we have a problem.

Are you seeing high rates of hospitalizations and deaths from masks and vaccines which exceed the savings in hospitalizations and deaths we're getting from masks and vaccines? This is standard cost benefit analysis. 

You don't want a mask or vaccine, I say OK that's your decision. But from the evidence I have seen, masks and vaccines save more lives than they take, and save more hospitalizations than they cause.

The herd immunity argument matters because that was part of the lie that forcing people to get vaccinated would result in herd immunity due to the vaccine having a high efficacy of stopping transmission (a lie).

There is no evidence that cloth or surgical masks "save lives" or "save hospitalizations".

The data seem to indicate that the vaccine reduces covid severity/death in the old and/or people with comorbitities. However, there are no vaccine cost/benefit studies.

I am in agreement with you that people should be free to wear/not wear a mask and/or get/not get the vaccine.