Vaccines prevent infection, as evidenced by the drastically lower COVID case numbers in the vaccinated. You can’t spread it if you don’t have it. If you do contract it, you are less infectious.
This is no different to instituting lockdowns before vaccines became available.
> Vaccines prevent infection, as evidenced by the drastically lower COVID case numbers in the vaccinated.
Vaccines suppress symptoms, which may result in infected people being unaware they are infected or transmitting to others. That's why the CDC recommends (as of October 15) that vaccinated people be tested after exposure, since lack of symptoms != lack of infection, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac...
> Based on evolving evidence, CDC recommends fully vaccinated people get tested 5-7 days after close contact with a person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
The problem with this “record” is that people may come to incorrect conclusions from the way the information is presented.
Do these headlines represent revisions to the initial effectiveness? Or do they represent the waning effectiveness over time? What is the point of having Fauci in the video?
There’s the problem right there. No conclusions should be drawn from watching that YouTube video, yet it has been created specifically to fool people who will do no further reading. The creator doesn’t care of course. YouTube doesn’t care either.
I don't think the "Please stop spreading misinformation." boilerplate is necessarily always hostile and provocative.
In situations where the comment is only aimed at correcting a factual mistake, for example, it can be okay, if still bad style.
It always feels as if it prematurely implies evil intention, which is a move that does not belong in any intellectually honest conversation, neither casual nor scientific.
I don't think the boilerplate should be used in comments that then continue with highly questionable, very radical statements. Especially if heterodox opinions are stated as if they were well established positions.
For example:
"This is no different to instituting lockdowns before vaccines became available."
The idea that conditional lockdowns are identical to non-conditional lockdowns from legal, medical or political perspective is not just wrong, but also unnecessarily radical. The radicalism just makes the wrongness trivial to spot.
The position that actually justifies conditional lock-downs (like the new Austrian policy) is one where the discriminatory treatment is acknowledged and justified, not simply denied.
...which should not surprise anyone who somewhat followed the discourse on the issue.
I know that's not as attractive as just denying the existence of differences between two obviously different policies.
Naming a difference is not an argument in favour of sameness.
The availability of a vaccine is one of the several ways in which the current Austrian policy is different from earlier lockdowns.
This alone already has direct consequences for the political justification of the policy: In the article OP linked they specifically name vaccination nudges as one of the effects they expect from their conditional lockdown. Which is something that would not have made sense in the absence of vaccines.
Pedantry can have it's upside though, so I'm not complaining! :)
Covid vaccines cannot 100% prevent infection like polio vaccine. There are papers that talked about vaccinated people with higher load virus for the initial infection. Given vaccinated people tends to display even less symptoms and more asymptomatic, they are able to spread more because more "infectious". If one is severely down with Covid, one will be confine at home or hospital. Hence the OP claims of more infections is correct and it is not spreading misinformation. This is why now healthcare professionals have opt not to use the word "herd immunity" confer by vaccines. Ironically you are actually more inline with spreading misinformation by not clarifying the vaccinated can still be infected and move around way more than severely unvaccinated people. Having say this, I am pro vaccinations. It is still the right and responsibility thing to do.
They did here a month or two ago. They now apply only in areas where vaccinated and unvaccinated people mingle and enforcement would be too much bother.
Vaccines prevent infection, as evidenced by the drastically lower COVID case numbers in the vaccinated. You can’t spread it if you don’t have it. If you do contract it, you are less infectious.
This is no different to instituting lockdowns before vaccines became available.