Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kanated t1_iqxr0lb wrote

>wasn’t as effective as we were initially led to believe.

What were we "initially led to believe"?

I was initially led to believe that the vaccine was highly effective at preventing serious cases and that the virus was highly mutable. So far everything checks out.

18

Individual-Jaguar885 t1_iqxrvxi wrote

That it “prevented transmission” which was untrue but considered “misinformation” to say otherwise

1

godblessthischild t1_iqxsxiv wrote

It did prevent transmission until delta got here

9

Individual-Jaguar885 t1_iqxu3l3 wrote

No. It. Did. Not.

−1

UrbanGhost114 t1_iqxyzk6 wrote

Yes. It. Did.

You think that if it's not 100% effective, it's not working.

But that's not how science works, and especially not how health science works, and it's not ever what the science said.

If you stopped to actually read actual scientific studies from scientists that study this stuff, instead of memes based off of press releases from politicians, you would know what the veracity was, and how it worked for each of the vaccines (there were easy to read tables and everything). And when delta came out, they updated the tables, and surprise, it worked, just not as well, and the scientific releases reflected the changes, and the likely explanation with the information they had at the time (which turned out to be relitively accurate for the fly by the seat of your pants fast pace this stuff was going down).

This whole thing really highlighted the lack of health science literacy in the world, and the difficulty in fixing that issue.

18

substantial-freud t1_iqy53j4 wrote

> What were we "initially led to believe"?

95% reduction in infection.

> I was initially led to believe that the vaccine was highly effective at preventing serious cases and that the virus was highly mutable

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

−2