[_yid9]

Bless you, but it's surreal to have such a discussion in a forum that purports to attract interesting discussion on technical topics.

Perhaps you missed the Pfizer's admission to the EU parliament that they did no such testing.

The fact that governments, researchers and medical professionals worldwide claimed they did test effectiveness against transmission (and thus claimed moral high-ground in forcing these prophylactic treatments which do not include immunization), when in fact they did NOT test, will go down as one of the most catastrophic blunders in the history of public medicine.

Trust in public medicine programs -- and, tragically, public vaccination programs in particular, has been destroyed, perhaps for generations.

And it is due, in no small part, to catastrophic hubris such as revealed here.

FUD about vaccines is now rampant because the extreme testing, care and attention they usually undergo was short-circuited. The resultant outcome of unnecessary carnage will be squarely on the shoulders of those responsible for this outrageous lack of scientific humility.

[rhyzomatic]

Your first paragraph is condescending and unnecessary.

Can you cite any sources that confirm that "governments, researchers and medical professionals worldwide claimed they did test effectiveness against transmission"? I haven't seen any, and a cursory Google search reveals articles like this [0] which confirm my memory that this was never claimed by the vaccine researchers. Independent research after the vaccines were released did find they reduced transmission significantly (for the early variants).

This reference to the Pfizer "admission" seems way more like a gotcha tactic. Pfizer never made the claim, nor was it necessary to show the vaccine was safe and served its primary objective.

Edit: Oops, forgot to cite my source :P

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pfizer-vaccine-tra...

[_yid9]

No. What is condescending and unnecessary is the claim that "They did test that the vaccine reduced risk of transmission", when even the Reuters "fact check" confirms that they did not [0]

Gaslighting the HN audience into questioning our memory that we were forced to take an untested vaccine will be met with immediate and sharp reprimand. If you feel it is condescending -- then stop gaslighting. You lied, and people were forced to take a wildly experimental, potentially dangerous, untested product. Unacceptable.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pfizer-vaccine-tra...

Thousands of my fellow citizens were forced to leave their jobs for refusing this. Our government officials are on video claiming they had solid scientific reasons to do so, to "protect grandma". It was all lies. And you know it.

[rhyzomatic]

The commenter you originally replied to was wrong. Pfizer (and other vaccine researchers) never did research on transmission.

But again, can you cite any sources saying that at one point they [Pfizer and other vaccine researchers] did claim that?

The answer of course is that no, you can't, because they didn't. They didn't lie and neither did governments and health organizations. But because we were asked to vaccinate to protect ourselves and others (which worked, and was quickly backed by independent scientific research after vaccines were offered to the public), it sounds like a big gotcha lie if Pfizer says they specifically didn't research that.

Note there are ways you protect others by vaccinating other than reducing transmission. By significantly lowering your chance of hospitalization, you ensure there are more free hospital beds for those that need it (due to COVID or not).