An unsourced “I claim most people have this misunderstanding, therefore the claim that vaccines work must be responsive to this incorrect understanding (plus some vague mishmash of implications about conspiracies to change the definition of vaccination, or something)” doesn’t strike me as a terribly productive line of argument to be honest.
They didn't recommend anything against the vaccine. It is just overzealous fact-checkers who (similarly to antivax) couldn't admit that they were confused about the article and mislabelled it as false.
They were lying. Or at the very least didn't understand the claims actually made by Pfizer/etc, which was only that these vaccines prevented the disease, not that they prevented infection/transmission. They made no claims about infection/transmission.
It comes down to the stupid conflation of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 into just "covid". Pfizer/etc use the two terms correctly, saying they prevented COVID-19, but didn't say anything about stopping SARS-CoV-2, but because everyone thinks "covid" is the virus they can't seem to understand what was actually said.
We still have no definitive proof of what will happen in the next 5-10 years to people that have taken the vaccine. Just because someone said that there is nothing that can happen based on the science, doesn't mean it's definitive - it's just conjecture.
That is simply not how the vaccine was presented by authorities and the media. They literally said the vaccine will stop you from getting it and stop transmission. It took them months to acknowledge you could still get it and spread it with the vaccine and all the data simply points to a reduction in severity of symptoms.
What happened was they rolled out the vaccine before they had all the data, and it was bit oversold despite lack of data, perhaps to encourage people to get it.
It's water under the bridge now. But don't gaslight people on what they were told.
Sounds like extreme confirmation bias. Just a couple of counterpoints: Everyone taking the vaccine was supposed to be long dead. Women taking it were supposed to be sterile, and men too. There are billions of people who took and still... barely anything.
I think that we have a misunderstanding, so I am going to stress what I replied to: "the vaccines (falsely) claimed they would make me: immune" -> they weren't supposed to, they were developed based on another criteria. This is a problem of miscommunication in my opinion, as people sold vaccines as a way to reach immunity or herd immunity. People took bets and made guesses on something hard to model and predict. We like to give people news as they are 100 % sure, making simplification, even for good reasons. Scientific research and understanding does not work like this. Reality and complex, and if we have had a better approach at explaining the current scientific consensus regarding the COVID pandemic, including confidence levels, and lack of understanding or to make reliable predictions and such, science as a whole would probably not have suffered in terms of popularity and general trust.
I didn’t read the article, but isn’t it plausible that whatever they did allegedly did wrong wasn’t significant enough to warrant recommending against taking the vaccine?
When you have people claiming the vaccine doesn't work and a public figure goes to the press to overstate that the vaccine not only works, but it is essentially, perfect, then it's not a bad mistake - it's a knee-jerk response to the "conspiracy" criticism without evidence.
reply