Fake News on CDC website?

It started out well within topic. It only began to get off topic when you started questioning whether vaccinated could get infected. No need to stop an interesting discussion at this point.

 

The CDC is a public health hazard.

PROPUBLICA, "SERIES: CORONAVIRUS, Internal Emails Show How Chaos at the CDC Slowed the Early Response to Coronavirus, The CDC fumbled its communication with public health officials and underestimated the threat of the coronavirus even as it gained a foothold in the United States, according to hundreds of pages of documents ProPublica obtained., By Caroline Chen, Marshall Allen and Lexi Churchill March 26, 2020.
https://www.propublica.org/article/...-cdc-slowed-the-early-response-to-coronavirus

 

I think some may be unaware that transmission requires the act of infection. I don’t understand the disconnect but it seems to be very common among those who appeal to the authority of the CDC etc.

I think it goes back to the original violation of the tenets of epidemiology by the CDC on masking. They kept saying masks should be worn to protect OTHERS, not the wearer. They claimed the way to end the pandemic was to basically do nothing to prevent becoming infected, just focus on not infecting someone else when/if you became infected.

Recommending mask types that aren’t particularly effective at preventing the wearer from exposure to aerosols instead of N95 type masks was one aspect of this “mistake”. Another aspect was recommending and mandating masks in areas where risk of infection to the individual was lowest and not even advising people of the advantage of wearing masks where infection was most likely. In short, reducing infection of the individual took a backseat to the collective.

This made people forget the BEST way to prevent infecting others is to remain uninfected YOURSELF by your own actions, not relying on others to protect you. By default people now can’t understand the relationship between infection and transmission. I’ve had people go so far as tell me preventing an infection is not preventing transmission!

 

What do you make of the under 30's who have died from COVID, who were reported to have no pre-existing conditions?

 

But if the vaccines are effective at preventing infection, why do we need to worry about vaccinated people getting infected and transmitting? After all, you can't transmit if you aren't infected. so when the director talks about the vaccines not being able to prevent transmission, she obviously means that they're not able to prevent infection, LEADING TO transmission.

"Effective at preventing infection." Positive or negative language? "Can't prevent." Positive or negative language?

 

Is there evidence for this?

 

The effectiveness against infection was significantly reduced with Delta, and then even more so with Omicron.

 

Because "effective at preventing infection" doesn't mean 100% guaranteed to prevent infection in all cases. There are still measures and considerations that need to be taken in the event of someone being infected so even where vaccination reduces the number of infections, that doesn't change the need for those measures and considerations in the cases of the ones it doesn't prevent.

Yes, in those specific phrases they're expressing the same point from different angles. They're doing so for different reasons, to emphasise different elements of a complex and frankly commonly misrepresented picture. Again, if you look at the wider narrative rather than cherry picking individual phases, that is perfectly clear.

None of the messaging is perfect. The formal statements from organisations like the CDC have a massively wide and diverse audience and they're trying to present clear and simple messages about a complex and ever-changing situation. Similarly, in an unscripted interview, with an interviewer naturally trying to push the interviewee in to making headline-grabbing rather than necessary accurate statements, the clarity isn't always there. This is especially true if you take individual statements out of the wider context and intentionally try to represent them in a negative manner.

The point remans that there are no factual contradictions between the two sources you linked in the OP when taking each as a whole.

 

If you cannot see how "can't prevent" is totally opposite to "effective at preventing infection" then there's seriously something wrong with you.

 

"Can't prevent" is a meaningless sentence fragment. You're editing down the quotes even further than initially to misrepresent what was actually intended! Again, cherry picking individual statements (or fragments) is simply wrong. To understand the meaning and intent of what is being said or written, you need to see the whole thing in context.

This is like me claiming you said I'm legally blind because you wrote the words "you cannot see".

The full sentence was, as per your own OP, "what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission." (my emphasis). Preventing transmission and preventing infection are referring to two different things in this context. Put simply, transmission is going out, infection is coming in. Neither full statements are (or could be) perfectly worded to describe a complex and moving situation but by clear intent and meaning, they're not directly contradictory.

 

Bad Data .. then you have Doctors being paid .. tens of thousands of dollars per patient .. if they are recorded as Covid death .. one link from Nashville hospital recording deaths "with covid" .. not "From Covid" accounted for ~ 50% .. this is ridiculous.

I often use data from other nations. Canada for example has 30,000 deaths .. We are roughly 10 times Canada's population so - 300,000 is likely closer to the real number .. as opposed to 800,000.. unless we are doing something really wrong in terms of treatment .. but that is another story. India for example has 350 deaths per million .. vs US 2500 deaths per million. 700% higher.

Have heard that Obese nations have a much higher death rate .. but 700% .. holy carp. I think alot has to do with treatment - or rather lack there-of in places like US/Canada .. In India you got a treatment kit when you got Covid .. vitimins - anti-biotic for pneumonia - and "ivermectin" . go figure ?

 

I was just using your language. YOU said "can't prevent" here:

Do you understand that transmission requires infection?

 

"Effective at preventing." - closer to 0% or 100% in order to reasonably say that it's effective at preventing? "Can't prevent." - closer to 0% or 100% in order to reasonably say that it can't prevent?

 

Sure, but I was explaining that what that fragment is being used to mean is entirely dependant on the wider context of the word around it and the general text or conversation.

Obviously, but that doesn't change the key point I'm making. The two statements were addressing different, albeit related, points. If you're not willing to acknowledge that, there is no point discussing this any further with you.

 

Well have a go at answering this: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-on-cdc-website.596086/page-3#post-1073201020

 

Matters not .. the vax is not good at preventing infection - nor preventing transmission. The only thing the CDC had to make this claim to begin with was antibody studies - .. which don't tell you much - but real world data .. the actual experiment .. proved otherwise.

They should not be speaking "defacto" with regards to these antibody studies. - they should have been using works like "may help to prevent invection/transmission" prior to the real world experiment being conducted/completed .. but now it is complete .. and the vax is horrible at preventing infection/transmission. Helps out the immune compromized .. risk of harm from vax greater than risk of harm from Delta for healthy individuals.

 

How do we know that?

 

Do the calculation .. I use US numbers risk of death from the vax in the US is roughy 1 in 20,000 330 million x 70% vaxed/ 11,000 deaths ( low figure) = rougly 1 in 20,000 dead from vax ..

What do you figure risk of death is .. for a healthy person from Omicron in Australia ? Can't even do the calc for US .. hardly any deaths for Omicron .. but lets do it for the Delta and previous.

Assume US is at 50% who have had covid - 165 million people --- 800,000 dead (a very high number ..as many as half suspected to be "with covid" - but we will do it as is) 1 in 200 people .. dead from covid .. realistically .. more like 1 in 400 .. but will use the ultra conservative figure.

95% of those dead had 1 or more comorb .. ave was 4. left with 5 in 100 .. 9 out of 10 who died from pneumonia ... were pneumonia succeptible/ immune compromized - leaves us with 5 in 1000 .. 75% of which were Obese .. .. and we get maybe 2 in 1000- healthy folks showing up dead.

2 in 1000 x 200 = 2 in 200,000 = 1 in 100,000 .. and that is as conservative as we can get. .. Omicron you can multiply at least by 5 by the looks of things .. perhaps 10 .. but in the most conservative calculation .. using Delta and previous .. you are still 5 times more likely to die from the vax as a healthy person.

 

No thanks. I'm not interested in getting side-tracked in to irrelevant technicalities about specific wording and terminology. I've already said that the wording used often isn't perfect, especially in unscripted speech, and is also difficult to get perfect with such a complex and constantly moving issue.

None of this changes that the overall narrative of the two sources of information you quoted in the OP are not in conflict as the carefully selected extracts were intended to imply. That's why the thread has moved on to entirely different points.

 

Look, it's VERY simple! If the vaccines were effective at preventing infection, then the CDC Director wouldn't have gone on national television and said that the vaccines cannot prevent transmission.

 

I've already covered the distinction between infection and transmission. If you're unwilling or unable to accept that, it's your problem. Nobody else is agreeing with you on this point, they're just using the general negativity of the thread to hang their own issues off. I'm done.

 

It makes very little difference. The vaccines do not prevent infection. The infection can get passed on by vaccinated people with no symptoms. That is a major disadvantage between these and more conventional vaccines which actually prevent the infection. It is possible, if not likely, that the spread of the Omicron variation may have been increased by the vaccine because of that very reason.

 

FAKE THREAD HEADING!!

The right is comfortable with manipulating news and quotes to support their position they see nothing wrong with it.

I thought we would stop living in a world of alternative facts once tRump was out of office, but he's double down, no surprise there. But his supporters are piling on. They propagate RW Media lies and create their own whenever it suits them.

And then, using their manufactured facts, they accuse "the left" of causing everything wrong under the sun.

 

Everything you accuse the right of doing, you are doing when you misspell Trump's name.

 

What are you talking about? Are the vaccines effective at preventing infection or not?