No, I don't see the disconnect. I answered the questions. The questions were moving the goalposts, which probably explains the disconnect you're describing.
The dodge is that the real experts always admitted the shots wouldn't prevent transmission; it was just the talking heads and media who said it would, and that's where most people get their information. So now, years later when people aren't freaking out and fearing for their jobs, we're supposed to have all known all along what the real scientists behind the scenes were saying.
I was told by family and friends that the shots were 100% safe and effective, and that if I didn't take the shot I wanted grandma to die, because that's what the TV told them; and when I tried to show them quotes from the actual scientists creating the shots that contradicted that, they said it was misinformation.
I'm sorry I can't hear you over the sound of statistical proof that you are wrong!
When did I memorizing names of logical fallacies to toss them out as if they're arguments on their own? When I called your a/b bullshit a false dichotomy? Oh wait I didn't bother because you are a useless waste of space who can't even take their own advice.
Alright, let's see this proof ("statistical" or otherwise) that being vaccinated meant you were "unlikely to transmit".
Keep in mind, this proof has to deal with the fact that 1) a majority of people got vaccinated and 2) a majority of people got infected.
The strongest case you can make here is that for a brief period of time being vaccinated appeared to maybe have reduced symptomatic infections. That's not what unlikely to transmit means.
There was a brief period where this study shows 2 doses reduced the rate of transmission by 68%...during a short window of time. This effect was much less and even shorter lived for later variants.
Ultimately, pretty much all of these people would go on to contract covid, making the claim that the vaccines would make you "unlikely to transmit" very obviously untrue. Remember, the statement wasn't unlikely to transmit for a few months. It was unlikely to transmit, period.
Even if they continued to reduce transmission by 68%, which they clearly didn't come close to, "unlikely to transmit" would still be an overstatement.
This I what a fleshed out argument looks like. Do you have anything substantial to offer in return?
> White House coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci that the chances of scientists creating a highly effective vaccine — one that provides 98% or more guaranteed protection — for the virus are slim.
> Scientists are hoping for a coronavirus vaccine that is at least 75% effective, but 50% or 60% effective would be acceptable, too, he said.
> The FDA has said it would authorize a coronavirus vaccine so long as it is safe and at least 50% effective.
From August 2020 before the phase III trials were complete.
The Phase III trials dropped in November and showed something like 98% efficacy, but they only followed people for ~3 months, over which time the vaccine actually is that effective. But waning of antibodies and immune escape by the virus severely drags that number down, although prevention of severe disease remains high due to T-cell immunity. People thinking that Fauci said the vaccines would be something like 98% effective against infection and transmission are committing a Mandela effect fallacy.
I vividly remember that time period because I was in the camp which expected this coronavirus to behave like other common cold coronaviruses and to periodically reinfect people. I was following that reinfection tracker on BNO news pretty religiously. And I recall vividly that the whole idea that the vaccine would be a magic shot that would instantly shut down the pandemic was something that _people_ wanted desperately to believe, but responsible authorities like Fauci weren't ever actually saying that. The initial Phase III results, combined with the lack of data on reinfections at the time, led to a lot of wildly optimistic beliefs which were not scientifically grounded at all.
Then Omicron happened, and it did actually surprise scientists with how much the virus drifted and how much it escaped from existing antibodies. Which was something that nobody really quite predicted, but was in line with general predictions that the coronavirus was never getting eradicated and would eventually become a new seasonal coronavirus. Fauci may have said some things in 2021 that were technically contradicted by Omicron, but there were a lot of wildly optimistic claims after the initial good results of the Phase III trials, and I suspect that any incorrect statements by Fauci were couched in uncertain terms. And nobody during this pandemic was batting for a thousand.
Actual learned people did? Or regular Joe politicians?
I can open a newspaper any day and see a medical headline that's wildly inaccurate for the reason that by the time such information waters down to the average joe, the messaging has been warped. That's just how it works. This is not a reason to lose faith in the biomedical industry and their products, it isn't their fault.
To make an analogy, you know how it's not uncommon here on HN for people to poke fun at government officials for not understanding technology? It's the same thing. We don't go and distrust the tech companies for those statements.
My recollection was that the messaging was quite clear overall: the vaccine was there because it a) greatly reduced the risk of a serious outcome for the individual, b) reduce the risk of infection for the individual, and most important c) reduced the amount of COVID floating around the general population, and thus the overall rate of infection.
I'm sure one can point to individual counterexamples, but anyone claiming the overall message from *actual officials who actually understand the subject matter* was otherwise is being disingenuous.
