BleedBlueGold
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,271
- Reaction score
- 2,496
So your stance is, from day one, nobody promoted vaccines as no longer making the vaccinated a spreader. This Cleveland Clinic article (that I think is a good primer for most) states variants as the reason for a pivot. No pivot needed if it was never sold that way....
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/c...-19-to-others/
"At one point, we thought that being fully vaccinated meant we could leave our masks behind and go back to the normal that we’ve been longing for."
I really wish we could detour from this land of preventing possibilities and get back to a world of probabilities. It is possible to win the lottery, it is also foolish to plan your life based on that possibility coming to fruition.
The trial conclusions were available for the public to read themselves. Nowhere within the papers did either make the claim that their methodology was to test efficacy in terms of 100% prevention. Their studies were done entirely to gauge the efficacy on severe sickness (ie. requiring hospitalization) and death. What the WHO, the CDC, the mainstream media, politicians, etc did with that info isn't what I'm referencing.
The quote you pulled from that article would hold true if more people were vaccinated. Why is this so hard? The Delta variant would be a complete non issue (as it is to those vaccinated) if more people got the shot.
If you want to move goal posts and twist words so you feel better, that's on you. "Land of preventing possibilities...?" Again, no respectable, unbiased person was making such a claim. There's always risk. It'll never be zero. That's not what Moderna and Pfizer were offering. If you want to have a conversation about the agencies and people listed above, I'll probably agree with you more than disagree. But my OP has been about the raw data and what the vaccines have meant in terms of hospitalization and death. It's irrefutable at this point.