Meh, it was pretty universal that Covid vaccine would provide immunity and stop the spread. No beef with the initial prediction being wrong but we went over a yr with govt officials & others parroting something that was obviously wrong. Not blaming them for vaccine skepticism overall but
Left or right (or whatever) you lose credibility when you insist on things that are obviously not true, even if it's for the 'greater good'
This is not how I remember it. Once the first "breakthrough" cases happened it seemed clear that the vaccine was not a magic bullet, but was instead just a very powerful bullet.
It was pretty clear, it just wasn't acknowledged by officials. For ex vaccine mandates make alot of sense if it stops spread, but a LOT less so if it just lowers recepients risk. Yet we had vaccine passports for over a yr
I'm not excusing right wing propoganda or blaming science in general but the avg person is pretty suseptible to simplistic messaging. So slogans like "follow the science" work... Until the reality that "science" (appropriately) changes & then huge swaths of population think all "science" is BS
I live in Oregon and we never had mandated vaccine passports. Some private businesses would ask for proof of vaccination because they rightly thought that someone who'd been vaccinated was *less likely* to contract Covid...but even that pissed off people.
Can't speak to Oregon but huge numbers of states, cities and localities did have them, including in workplace. And btw I was in favor and still am bc dying ppl are expensive but mandates based on obviously false notion of immunity undermine public trust.
Fewer infected and infectious people is how you stop spread. You have no examples of actual false messaging. Instead you're imposing childish misunderstandings and blaming "officials" for them.
We were all here for Covid, you can pretend what happened didn't and keep undermining the CORRECT macro messages but Im not going through the pointless exercise of searching for inaccurate past messaging (so you can pick it apart each one) as again, we all know how the SM game is played.
No vaccine has ever been presented as 100% effective at providing immunity, at least not by medical professionals. The whole concept of widespread vaccination is based on reducing the chance of infection so that an infected person doesn’t easily pass it on, like pouring water on kindling.
Right except the type of herd immunity you speak was not applicable to covid vaccine as it seemed to convey very little immunity from getting or spreading the infection, it was tho extremely effective in mitigating impact of disease. But experts spent far too long arguing former (as you are still)
The initial round of vaccines was about 95% effective at preventing infection, so you’re just completely wrong. www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-1...
Thanks for the citation that demonstrates what I said. (95% effective in TRIAL at preventing SYMPTOMATIC disease that was not replicated in real world). It's the insistence of the former when we the latter became clear that was the unforced error I am highlighting and that u are STILL doing.