Here
and
Now

opinions

High-profile breakthrough cases trigger vaccine misinformation

19 Comments
By Claire SAVAGE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Powell died from cancer, not covid. Covid was just a complication but not the cause of death.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

It is ineffective, or at least a massive rip off for what was paid for it on the basis it was supposed to be '90% effective'...

Now it turns out Pfizer just straight up lied about its trials, go report on that instead

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

So-called breakthrough cases are expected and do not mean the vaccines are ineffective, U.S. health authorities say.

Totally agree.

And these breakthrough cases also mean the vaccines are not always effective.

Where is the misinformation?

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

How about just reporting the facts instead of twisting everything to fit a narrative.

That would be a valid criticism only if you can prove anything in the reporting contradicts the best available science.

It is ineffective, or at least a massive rip off for what was paid for it on the basis it was supposed to be '90% effective'.

It still is, since it clearly demonstrated to protect against serious disease and death, even against a new variant for which obviously no claim could be ever made before it existed.

Now it turns out Pfizer just straight up lied about its trials, go report on that instead

Like in all of them in multiple countries? does Pfizer also lie about the evidence from millions of vaccinated people all over the world (and for which Pfizer has nothing to do with the data) that support the conclusions of the clinical trials? One thing is to criticize identified problems, this will help improving how trials are being conducted for everything in the future. Another completely different (and invalid) is to overly generalize and misrepresent the problem as if it made all the other evidence of the vaccine safety and efficacy false, that is disinformation.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Where is the misinformation?

Some people die or suffer loss of function even if they undergo surgery to solve a bone fracture, thus surgery is not always effective. Does this mean it can be said that surgery is an inneffective treatment for fractures?

The misinformation is in generalizing one aspect as if it represented the overall conclussion from the whole thing. Vaccines are very effective, specially at preventing dangerous health problems and death, so saying they are "ineffective" is false, mistaken, wrong. Even if vaccination can't prevent absolutely all cases of infection. That would make every single form of medical treatment "ineffective" as well.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Ok BigYen, your mind is numb, check!

NO LONG TERM STUDIES on humans = not RARE "break though" cases. TIP OF THE ICEBURG cases!

This is only the beginning. Do you have buyers remorse or Stockholm Syndrome?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The misinformation comes from the far-right media and other "media personalities" to further their trope that other media sources are untrustworthy and that only Fox/OANN/Breitbart can bring you the "real" truth - like horse dewormer is a more effective cure than scientifically validated vaccines...

Of course, they forget to tell you that their parent companies have a vaccine and vaccine passport mandate for entrance to their facilities, and that 90% of their employees are already vaccinated - while at the same time telling their gullible viewers it's "poison"....

It's all about the Benjamins...selling books and premium memberships...

4 ( +8 / -4 )

How about just reporting the facts instead of twisting everything to fit a narrative.

The misinformation comes from the left seeing science from the side it finds reasonable to their narrative without any dissent, as long as the left refuses to allow various scientific points of view and have a discussion covering all sides you will have resistance. One side of the argument doesn’t have the right to shut the other side up, why then would the opposite listen? Doesn’t work and will never work.

Translation: The Ministry of Truth will need to vet and approve everything social media post and comment and even your personal messages before they are sent to combat "misinformation"

Exactly.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

It's a scientific fact, proven by credible peer-reviewed research that so-called fully-vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the virus (within intimate groups such as their families) as unvaccinated. The vaccines may reduce the severity of an infection but not actually reduce the spread.

Certain people who have multiple preconditions clearly may benefit from getting the jabs. But others also suffer adverse reactions. Denying the risks and reality of documented adverse events fosters increasing doubt among the populace.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

The problem is persistent: a fully vaccinated public figure catches COVID-19, and social media sites are soon flooded with claims that this proves the shots do not work.

This article starts out confused and then just spirals downward.

Fully vaccinated and catching COVID-19=the shots do not work. Nothing wrong with that conclusion.

Maybe the article could have used more precise and specific scientific terms to fit its narrative.

virusrexNov. 9  10:30 am JST

Some people die or suffer loss of function even if they undergo surgery to solve a bone fracture, thus surgery is not always effective. Does this mean it can be said that surgery is an inneffective treatment for fractures?

Bad analogy. People getting vaccinated do so in hopes of not coming down with the illness the vaccine is meant to prevent. It is not a treatment.

Surgery is a treatment for an ailment or injury; it is not used for preventing that injury.

Once a bell is struck it can't be unrung.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Fully vaccinated and catching COVID-19=the shots do not work. Nothing wrong with that conclusion.

Again, as in the example I give that proves that reasoning is completely wrong, this is an invalid conclusion because the vaccination do work very nicely even if not to a 100%, saying "the shots do not work" is like saying a healthy diet don't work because you can still find people getting health problems while following one.

Bad analogy. People getting vaccinated do so in hopes of not coming down with the illness the vaccine is meant to prevent. It is not a treatment.

One, the analogy do not depend on the purpose of the medical intervention, but how it is invalid to say something do not work just because it is not 100% effective. Second, vaccines ARE a form of treatment, and surgery IS used to prevent complications, loss of function and death from an injury.

If you want to discuss a topic it is very important that at least you try to keep up with the terminology, that would make easier to understand when you are being mistaken, this is specially important if you are going to keep trying to discuss only semantics to avoid the actual points of the argument,

1 ( +3 / -2 )

virusrexToday  06:19 am JST

Again, as in the example I give that proves that reasoning is completely wrong, this is an invalid conclusion because the vaccination do work very nicely even if not to a 100%, saying "the shots do not work" is like saying a healthy diet don't work because you can still find people getting health problems while following one.

I get it--the reasoning is wrong because you say it's wrong. Very scientific.

And the vaccination do work very nicely--is "work" a medical term? If you want to try and make an argument while sounding like you have some scientific basis for your conclusion, it is very important that at least you try to keep up with the terminology; that would make it easier to understand when you are being mistaken. This is especially important if you are going to keep trying to discuss only semantics to avoid the actual points of the argument,

virusrexToday  06:19 am JST

Second, vaccines ARE a form of treatment, and surgery IS used to prevent complications, loss of function and death from an injury.

This is a good one---so I guess you we can start comparing vaccines, surgery, and pepperoni pizza! Because pizza, like surgery, IS used to prevent complications, loss of function and death from starving..

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I get it--the reasoning is wrong because you say it's wrong. Very scientific.

It is wrong because I provided logical proof that you can't refute and instead bring irrelevant details that do not disprove it. You want to prove it is not wrong? that would require proving the reasons provided are not valid, which you have not done.

Yes, work is a medical term, easily understood and used even on scientific papers. and discussions

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.373.6551.142

Once again I recommend you to consider first for a moment the realistic possibility that you may be wrong instead of jumping to "correct" things that have no problems in the first place.

 pizza, like surgery, IS used to prevent complications, loss of function and death from starving.

Dietary interventions do, pizza by itself does not, if you need to pretend not to have common sense you are already recognizing you have no valid argument to do it

https://cancer.ca/en/treatments/treatment-types/surgery

"Preventive, or prophylactic, surgery is used to prevent or lower the risk of developing certain types of cancer. It is done before cancer develops."

Can you present any official source to support your conclussion that surgery can't be considered preventive?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

virusrexToday  08:07 am JST

It is wrong because I provided logical proof that you can't refute and instead bring irrelevant details that do not disprove it. You want to prove it is not wrong? that would require proving the reasons provided are not valid, which you have not done.

Same narrative, different phraseology. So first, your argument is right, and I am wrong. And now, I am wrong, so your reasoning is correct. Neat trick.

Once again I recommend you to consider first for a moment the realistic possibility that you may be wrong instead of jumping to "correct" things that have no problems in the first place. 

I recommend the same for you. Are you willing to try?

Can you present any official source to support your conclussion that surgery can't be considered preventive?

Let's look at how you first used that word surgery:

surgery IS used to prevent complications, loss of function and death from an injury.

I think we can agree that you claim vaccines as mentioned in this article have the goal, among others to prevent COVID-19 infections. The vaccines are not being given while the person is infected, right?

But as you try and claim surgery is used to prevent an injury, the surgery was not used to prevent the injury that occurred in the first place. The surgery is taking place while the person is injured.

You seem to be a strong advocate for people to get vaccinated, to prevent becoming infected, or to limit symptoms if one does become infected/

Now you would want people to get surgery on a limb to prevent complications that might occur from a future injury?

So, again, bad analogy.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Same narrative, different phraseology. So first, your argument is right, and I am wrong. And now, I am wrong, so your reasoning is correct. Neat trick.

If I can prove you wrong, and you can't do anything against those arguments that means you are considered to be mistaken until you can actually disprove them. That is how logic works. How do you imagine arguments are proved wrong?

But as you try and claim surgery is used to prevent an injury, the surgery was not used to prevent the injury that occurred in the first place. The surgery is taking place while the person is injured.

Quote exactly where did I claim surgery is used to prevent an injury. Else your whole argument is based on a false premise. It is also completely irrelevant, because the property of something being therapeutical or preventing do not have any importance about how it is invalid and mistaken to say something "do not work" just because it is not 100% effective.

You seem to be a strong advocate for people to get vaccinated

I am a strong advocate of people discussing properly, and correcting mistakes, such as saying vaccines "do not work" when it has been proved scientifically they do.

And also, as proved by an official source surgery can be considered preventive, because doing it can prevent further complications and death, the only one that is trying to argue about imaginary future injuries is you.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

virusrexToday  08:59 am JST

If I can prove you wrong, and you can't do anything against those arguments that means you are considered to be mistaken until you can actually disprove them. That is how logic works. How do you imagine arguments are proved wrong?

Logic works when you have a conclusion supported by a true premise.

But again, you commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. You prove me wrong because you say you prove me wrong?

From your statements it is seen that you keep repeating the same elementary error in reasoning.

Can you present any official source to support your conclusion that pizza can't be considered preventive?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites