[sovnade]

No official body has ever said "you will not get covid if you get the vaccine". Even the earliest trial results said "you will not be hospitalized or die if you get the vaccine", not that you won't get covid.

And at the time, that was true because we were dealing with the original strain.

Nothing else you said is untrue either. The vaccine drastically reduced the spread of the virus. I'm not sure what you're getting at besides spreading more disinformation.

edit: i've replied several times below but everyone needs to keep in mind WHEN things were said. When the CDC said you wouldn't catch the virus in early 2021 - they were basically fully accurate because we were dealing with the original strain. Delta did not exist yet. The original vaccines were INCREDIBLY effective against the original strain - beyond anyone's wildest expectations. 100% effectiveness against death and severe hospitalization. 95% effectiveness against symptoms entirely. These levels of protection were amazing. Yes, things changed when Delta arrived, and even moreso with omicron and future subvariants, but you can't go back with hindsight and discredit what was said _at the time_.

[robhunter]

The president of the United States literally said "You're not going to get Covid if you've had these vaccinations" - https://youtu.be/VArXfQU--LA?t=21

It's likely the vaccines reduced the spread of the virus temporarily, but it certainly wasn't very long-lasting. The efficacy waned quickly, even against the original strains/Alpha/Delta - take a look at case rates in Israel (first heavily vaccinated country) through mid-late 2021 (before Omicron).

[sovnade]

Remember Delta wasn't even around until late summer. Biden's speech was barely an exaggeration at the time when we were dealing with the original strain. Was it 100% effective at preventing all infection entirely? No. It was 100% effective in preventing severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death, and was 95% effective in preventing symptoms entirely. 95% reduction in infection and 100% reduction in death is close enough to round up for a non-technical speech.

[josephcsible]

> It was 100% effective in preventing severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death

Do you have a source for this? It sounds completely implausible.

[Ekaros]

So it was outright lie. Pure evil to spread that sort of pseudo-science.

[etchalon]

And as this is the first time any politician has engaged in hyperbole, or been made incorrect by changing information, the American public was rightfully shocked.

[apostacy]

Except that created a narrative that the pandemic was above politics, and was only about public health and "the science". But that is clearly not the case.

[Terretta]

As was known before Americans took them: 90 - 180 days useful efficacy tops. That’s why the first vax card already had a half dozen lines to record doses.

[jmaygarden]

I definitely did NOT know that when the vaccinations were first rolled out. Do you have a source?

[ekianjo]

Wrong on all accounts. The early communication about the vaccine was all about preventing infections. You are trying to rewrite History.

Back in 2020, press release from Pfizer:

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...

> "Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose;170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics; observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%"

[etchalon]

What you're showing is that the early data showed a high degree of efficacy against an earlier variant. And 95% isn't 100%.

[ekianjo]

Even with the earlier variants the actual clinical data on the market never achieved 95%. Pure hyperbole and Pfizer has still not shared the actual raw data of the trials.

[sovnade]

It was extremely effective against preventing infection (and transmission). The press release you posted said as much. But everything I heard at the time was that it was 100% effective at preventing severe infections (including hospitalizations and death), and that you were much, much less likely to have symptoms at all should you contract it.

[hanklazard]

The parent is not “spreading more disinformation”, as I see it. The comment just gives the opinion that the public is less than optimistic about vaccines after a challenging and rapidly changing public health campaign. I can tell you as a primary care doctor in a highly blue area of the country, I pretty much agree with the assessment—we are seeing very little interest these days, as much as we are trying to offer.

[apvieira]

What about the CDC saying that "vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick"?

https://youtu.be/uKf8dVxOy0s

[sovnade]

And this was mostly true from the original strain back in early 2021. The vaccine reduced the ability to contract and spread the virus dramatically. The chances of contracting and spreading the original strain, if you were fully vaccinated, was close enough to zero to say it basically wasn't happening.

Delta obviously changed that, and omicron has changed it much more.

[peteradio]

You would think the Centers for Disease Control might predict this coronavirus like all other coronaviruses would rapidly mutate. This is the worst kind of data driven exercise where field knowledgeable people apparently pretend that the history of their field does not exist. Experts are clearly being siloed and gagged. I'd even bet Fauci is being told what to say, against his own judgement, but his position gags him. Any true scientist would be twisted into knots protecting their statements with caveats, but what does the public hear? Confidence!

[Ekaros]

>And this was mostly true

Always coming back with the weasel words after lies. This is why the one side can not be trusted at all. They always lie and distort the truth.

[yucky]

The CDC literally rewrote the definition of "vaccine" on their website to fit the new reality.[1]

Sorry, the trust is long gone and never coming back.

[1] https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/emails-confirm-why-cdc-ch...

[sovnade]

And now it's more accurate - there's plenty of vaccines out there previously that weren't 100% effective, so there's no reason to have the absolute language out there. The measles vaccine is only 97% effective after 2 doses - so that wouldn't have met the old definition either.

edit: sorry i'm rereading your post and I'm not even sure what your issue is with the current definition

[yucky]

>sorry i'm rereading your post and I'm not even sure what your issue is with the current definition

Really?

So the definition the CDC used for years to describe vaccines had to be changed, since by their own definition the COVID vaccine wasn't actually a vaccine. And the best part is they didn't even announce & explain the change, they just stealthily modified it on their website.

And you don't understand why so many people think secretly redefining a very important word after the fact to change the meaning is shady? Especially considering government mandates put millions of people in a very uncomfortable spot with employment - you don't see why that would lead to mistrust?

OK. I'm not sure we'll be able to square this circle then.

[nathanaldensr]

Remember, the gaslighters want you to feel crazy for noticing these things, when in fact it's a very rational reaction to have. Remember, they imply that you are the crazy one for mistrusting government, and all past incidents that show government (and the pharmaceutical industry) are not to be trusted are to be merely handwaved away.

It was, quite frankly, a psyop of the highest order. And they're still pushing it, even in this thread.

[internet_user]

The thread dropped off the front page so quickly, despite huge amount of comments.

must be another deboosted keyword in here somewhere!

[sovnade]

Yes - in science, definitions change all the time. We redefined what a planet was and booted Pluto out of the group.

Which part of the new definition do you disagree with as being a valid definition for a modern vaccine? And what difference does it make functionally? The covid vaccines were a product that gave you protection against a disease. Everyone knows that's what a vaccine is. I don't see why it matters what the definition on the site was to begin with.

[josephcsible]

> Which part of the new definition do you disagree with as being a valid definition for a modern vaccine?

Isn't the fundamental point of a vaccine to protect you from a disease? Because that's exactly the part of the definition they removed.

[wizofaus]

Where are you seeing that? And clearly the fundamental point of current COVID vaccines is to protect you from disease (they may not help much preventing you from catching it, but they certainly protect you once you have caught it).

[jameshart]

If our approach to public health and epidemiology isn't changed by our first encounter with a truly global pandemic in a century, we're doing it wrong.

[internet_user]

We've had two pandemics since the typhus/flu pandemics of 1920s.

1. 1968 flu pandemic. 2. 1957 flu pandemic

[SideburnsOfDoom]

That's nice, but doesn't at all refute the parent's point that the current global pandemic (which worse than those, if a quick google is anything to go by) can and should cause changes to public health and epidemiology.