Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital

[probinson]

Quote the line that backs your story.

It's not "my story". If you're incapable of clicking the link and reading Pfizer's press release about the study, that's on you. The bottom line is that the vaccine approval was based on a relative risk reduction in prevented infections. Yet you're trying to tell me that no one ever said vaccines would prevent infections, which is complete and utter nonsense.

Here's just one example from Johns Hopkins (emphasis added);

As more and more people are vaccinated, the virus will have fewer people to infect, and community transmission will go down.

I'm a Healthy Young Person. Why Should I Get a COVID Vaccine? | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
​

The clear implication here is that vaccinated people do not get COVID.

Anyone old enough to remember the nonsensical claim that this was a "pandemic of the unvaccinated"? Again, the clear implication here was that vaccinated people did not get COVID. Heck, the President of the United States came right out and said, "You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations."

You're not fooling anyone (except maybe yourself?) by pretending like vaccines weren't sold as a way to prevent infection. It was only when it became completely undeniable that vaccinated people were contracting COVID at the same rate as unvaccinated people that there was a pivot to talking about severe disease.

 

[Estrid]

It's not "my story". If you're incapable of clicking the link and reading Pfizer's press release about the study, that's on you. The bottom line is that the vaccine approval was based on a relative risk reduction in prevented infections. Yet you're trying to tell me that no one ever said vaccines would prevent infections, which is complete and utter nonsense.

Here's just one example from Johns Hopkins (emphasis added);

As more and more people are vaccinated, the virus will have fewer people to infect, and community transmission will go down.

I'm a Healthy Young Person. Why Should I Get a COVID Vaccine? | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
​

The clear implication here is that vaccinated people do not get COVID.

Anyone old enough to remember the nonsensical claim that this was a "pandemic of the unvaccinated"? Again, the clear implication here was that vaccinated people did not get COVID. Heck, the President of the United States came right out and said, "You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations."

You're not fooling anyone (except maybe yourself?) by pretending like vaccines weren't sold as a way to prevent infection. It was only when it became completely undeniable that vaccinated people were contracting COVID at the same rate as unvaccinated people that there was a pivot to talking about severe disease.

Whatever you think or feel is implied, the role of a vaccine is to
give your immune system the tools in needs to quickly mount
a good defense after it detects an infection.
That's it.

 

[Larniavc]

i do not see any science denying going on by these people

Doesn’t matter.

 

[Larniavc]

No, but it is bigotry to support discrimination in education and employment based on a vaccine that will ultimately fail to protect you from infection.

No it isn’t.

 

[Larniavc]

Do you believe EVERYONE is going to get COVID?

Why is that question important? Vaccines can stop you developing life threatening symptoms.

What more do you expect?

 

[probinson]

Care to admit you were wrong?

About what? Your link says (emphasis added);

Vaccines stimulate the human body’s own protective immune responses so that, if a person is infected with a pathogen, the immune system can quickly prevent the infection from spreading within the body and causing disease. In this way, vaccines mimic natural infection but without actually causing the person to become sick.

For SARS-CoV-2, antibodies that bind to and block the spike protein on the virus’s surface are thought to be most important for protection from disease because the spike protein is what attaches to human cells, allowing the virus to enter our cells. Blocking this entrance prevents infection.

...

In general, most vaccines do not completely prevent infection but do prevent the infection from spreading within the body and from causing disease. Many vaccines can also prevent transmission, potentially leading to herd protection whereby unvaccinated people are protected from infection by the vaccinated people around them because they have less chance of exposure to the virus. We are still learning whether or not the current Covid-19 vaccines prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. It is likely they reduce the risk of virus transmission but probably not completely in everyone.​

First, I'm sure you'll point out that it says "most vaccines do not completely prevent infection". But you have to keep reading, where it says they DO prevent the infection from spreading within the body and from causing disease. This is where the claim that breakthrough infections were "rare" was born, until it became completely undeniable that breakthrough infections were NOT in fact rare, but rather were a near certainty.

That last part is interesting. They say "it is likely they reduce the risk of virus transmission." It's important to note that this page was authored in October 2020. Sometime around February 2021 - March 2021, this line was added (thanks Internet Wayback Machine!), which still reads the same today;

We are still learning whether or not the current Covid-19 vaccines prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. It is likely they reduce the risk of virus transmission but probably not completely in everyone.​

In March 2021, that was a valid question and we did not know the answer. In August 2022, that is a testable hypothesis and we can look at highly vaccinated nations and observe that no, high rates of COVID vaccination did not prevent transmission of infections.

Higher vaccination rates ARE NOT correlated with fewer infections. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not likely that they reduce the risk of transmission. In fact, a new hypothesis is likely worth examining, that highly vaccinated areas are correlated with HIGHER infection rates. Could it be that we've creating a vaccine-enabled virus with immune imprinting? It could be, but I don't suspect anyone really wants to look at that hypothesis objectively, with as much certainty and weight that was thrown behind vaccine mandates.

 

[probinson]

No it isn’t.

Sure it is. As many as 40% of black students will be denied an equal education if they enforce the mandates in DC strictly. It can be disconcerting to realize that this is the result of what you support when you support discriminatory and ineffective vaccine mandates, but doesn't make it any less true.

 

[probinson]

Why is that question important?

Why can't you answer it? Your inability to admit that vaccines aren't preventing infections speaks to the sacredness some have ascribed to the vaccines. It's OK to say it. Your vaccine is almost certainly not going to prevent you from getting COVID. The CEO of Pfizer can attest to that.

Vaccines can stop you developing life threatening symptoms.

Perhaps. That's largely dependent upon your prior infection status, your age, and a myriad of other factors.

You know, nuance in medicine was once thought to be wise.

I don't understand this vaccine zealotry that has emerged. COVID monomania has done immense damage. I mean, they've spent so much time worrying about vaccinating children who are at an infinitesimal risk from COVID instead of keeping up on regular childhood vaccinations. And just like that, Polio is detected in the wastewater in NYC. This is what happens when you hyper focus on a single disease to the exclusion of all else. Public health, and the useful vaccine zealots that empowered them, own this failure.

 

[KCfromNC]

The story hasn't changed one bit, and you know that.

Uh oh, an attempt to pretend that I'm somehow at fault for pointing out the inconsistency in previous posts. That's not a good sign, almost as if there's a need to try and retreat to personal attacks rather than address the subject of the discussion using facts and reason.

If your vaccine provides fleeting protection in the months of July and August but you get infected in September, then it failed to protect you from infection.

Even ignoring that this hypothetical is a complete fabrication, it seems that admitting that vaccines slow the spread kinda runs counter to the original assertion that they "completely failed to slow the spread of COVID".

Like I said, interesting how much the story need to change once we look at the actual facts about covid vaccines.

 

[KCfromNC]

Indeed. Yet the study posted showing that vaccines prevented infections was limited to just a few months over a year ago.

That's false. The study looked at the data from a particular range of dates, but it didn't say anything about other periods. That latter part was just something made up to try and conjure up some "I know you are but what am I" when it was pointed out that it was cherry-picking to try and draw conclusions about the whole of the pandemic from a single set of data from a single country.

 

[KCfromNC]

You can see a clear correlation and causative effect after the introduction of the measles vaccines and the almost complete elimination of measles infections. No such correlation exists anywhere in the world with COVID vaccines.

That's also false. In fact, previous posts have admitted that the research shows exactly that - see post 139, for example, which acknowledges the research which shows vaccines reduce the spread among vaccinated people over the time periods studied by the research.

 

[Estrid]

Uh oh, an attempt to pretend that I'm somehow at fault for pointing out the inconsistency in previous posts. That's not a good sign, almost as if there's a need to try and retreat to personal attacks rather than address the subject of the discussion using facts and reason.


Even ignoring that this hypothetical is a complete fabrication, it seems that admitting that vaccines slow the spread kinda runs counter to the original assertion that they "completely failed to slow the spread of COVID".

Like I said, interesting how much the story need to change once we look at the actual facts about covid vaccines.

Interesting maybe, but not real interesting.

Why do science deniers (sci di) love so to Gish?
The one directed at me few posts back did great at
establishing scidi credz completely unread,
which is where I left it.
Nothing less interesting than a Gish.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Odd that the vaccine was approved on its ability to prevent infections if it was never intended to prevent infections.

It was intended to reduce the incidence of infection and to reduce the severity of of infections. The studies only had time to establish the effect on numbers of infections. But from experience with previous vaccinations and diseases like this, it was expected that when infection did occur, it would be more mild than if they were not vaccinated. And subsequent studies have validated that as well.

Well, I know multiple unvaccinated people who had COVID that also quickly fought off the disease and would describe it as a "mild cold". They can't credit the vaccine for their mild infections because they never had a vaccine. So while yes, it's plausible that the vaccine provided you with protection from a more severe infection, it's also quite plausible that it did absolutely nothing to reduce the severity of the disease.

You are confusing the results of each individual with the results for the aggregate of individuals. While one cannot say for sure what each individual might have experienced with or without the vaccine, we can say with a high degree of certainty that most of those that were infected with the vaccine suffered less than if they had not been vaccinated. Statistics prove that.

On that we can agree, which is why blanket recommendations in healthcare are usually foolish.

Public health recommendations are as specific as they can practically be. The are not "blanket" recommendations that ignore the known differences between groups of people.

Here's a great article calling for some nuance;
Zealotry and fundamentalism are a problem

This article ought to be used in a case study of how to mount a straw man attack. (Misrepresent your opponent's position and then attack that position, rather than attempt the harder job of attacking your opponent's best arguments.)

 

[Estrid]

It was intended to reduce the incidence of infection and to reduce the severity of of infections. The studies only had time to establish the effect on numbers of infections. But from experience with previous vaccinations and diseases like this, it was expected that when infection did occur, it would be more mild than if they were not vaccinated. And subsequent studies have validated that as well.


You are confusing the results of each individual with the results for the aggregate of individuals. While one cannot say for sure what each individual might have experienced with or without the vaccine, we can say with a high degree of certainty that most of those that were infected with the vaccine suffered less than if they had not been vaccinated. Statistics prove that.


Public health recommendations are as specific as they can practically be. The are not "blanket" recommendations that ignore the known differences between groups of people.


This article ought to be used in a case study of how to mount a straw man attack. (Misrepresent your opponent's position and then attack that position, rather than attempt the harder job of attacking your opponent's best arguments.)

But it does indirectly prevent infections.
People who don't even develop symptoms are
not coughing and sneezing

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It's a simple question; Do you believe EVERYONE is going to get COVID? If your answer is "yes", then the vaccines will fail to prevent infection in EVERYONE.

You are framing the question most suitable to your view, totally ignoring the benefit of reduced hospitalization and focusing only on the complete avoidance of infection. I submit that is a ridiculous criterion on which to just the benefit of a vaccine.

The CDC's new guidelines don't even distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated any more.

The CDC guidelines are about public policy, and only tangentially about the medical reality. In fact there is a difference in the outcome on the average. It just doesn't figure into the guidelines. The CDC still recommends that everyone who is not vaccinated get vaccinated, and anyone qualified for a booster should get that too. In the future we may have a yearly booster, like we have a yearly flu vaccine. That is true even though it is almost certain that everyone will get the flu at some point in their life.

Well, it doesn't last that long. We're already discussing dose 4 (or 5) in less than 2 years. Needing "boosted" just 5 months after you finish your initial 2-dose course is a great way to tacitly admit that the protection you received from the vaccine is remarkably fleeting.

That judgement is relative. The vaccine has prevented many hospitalizations and continues to do so.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here's just one example from Johns Hopkins (emphasis added);

As more and more people are vaccinated, the virus will have fewer people to infect, and community transmission will go down.

I'm a Healthy Young Person. Why Should I Get a COVID Vaccine? | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
​

The clear implication here is that vaccinated people do not get COVID.

No, you drew a nonsensical conclusion from this paper. The clear implication is that fewer people will be infected, and that is true. Nowhere in this study does it imply that vaccinated people just do not get COVID at all.

Anyone old enough to remember the nonsensical claim that this was a "pandemic of the unvaccinated"?

The claim was a statistical claim, and it was true. The only reason it is not so true now is that so many people have been vaccinated or recovered from infection, there are fewer unvaccinated "covid virgins" around to get infected.

It was only when it became completely undeniable that vaccinated people were contracting COVID at the same rate as unvaccinated people...

That was not true then and it is not true today, as long as you compute the rate based on the size of the populations involved.

 

[DaisyDay]

Unilateral means that it is the same for everyone. EVERYONE should be vaccinated, regardless of their age, prior infection status, benefits conferred, etc.

That's not what "unilateral" means. It means "one-sided", not the same for every side.

 

[probinson]

That's false.

No, it's quite true that the studies you provided were over a year old and only looked at a few months. Well lookie there! You admit as much in your very next statement!

The study looked at the data from a particular range of dates, but it didn't say anything about other periods.

It's hard to believe this is a serious comment. Of course a study that lays out parameters of what is being studied isn't going to say anything about other time periods.

The CDC did this repeatedly throughout the pandemic with their MMWR publications. They would publish "studies" that arrived at their predetermined conclusions by cherry-picking their data to craft an (untrue) narrative. They'd look at certain time periods and populations that "proved" their assertions while completely ignoring anything that ran contrary to their approved talking points.

That latter part was just something made up to try and conjure up some "I know you are but what am I" when it was pointed out that it was cherry-picking to try and draw conclusions about the whole of the pandemic from a single set of data from a single country.

Not really. I posted lots of data from lots of countries. You chose a year-old study that looked only at a few months.

 

[probinson]

That's also false. In fact, previous posts have admitted that the research shows exactly that - see post 139, for example, which acknowledges the research which shows vaccines reduce the spread among vaccinated people over the time periods studied by the research.

Do you only care about the time periods in "the research", or are you interested in real-world results?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Doesn’t matter.

not sure i understand your response.