🇳🇱
@phoenix ugh.. I mean i dont think the vaccines are needed with delta pretty much making them useless. But since they post virtually 0 risk I see no reason not to, just in case the latest data is wrong.
𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚎𝚊 
Does the data really point to that vaccines are "useless" thou?
Just asking
The data on anything related to COVID is too new to ever make any real absolute assertions. But yea recent data suggests the patterns we thought we saw suggesting limited protection were post hoc procter hoc and in fact the viral load of people who are vaccinated is exactly the same with delta as unavaccinated.
@freemo @selea @phoenix The swiss scientific Covid task force just announced that, according to their data, the vaccine *does* hinder transmission. By 95% just after the vaccination, going down to 66% 6 months later. The main reason they gave was that vaccinated people are less likely to contract the virus if exposed to it.
Caveat: This is specific to Biontech and Moderna.
@icedquinn
Thats kinda my point, its hard enough in a lab. So when any groub claims to have a definitive answer rather than just data and a shrug im already highly suspect.
We have some direct data, like viral load studies. And that siggests a narrative. But thats all we have and anyone who claims we have solid proof of this kind of stuff is suspect as shit.
apparently the FDA decided this was a good deal, and now we see all these news stories about people dying "and we don't know why."
if they had done said tests it would have shown either sterilizing effects (good) or that it didn't help transmission (likely, and bad) but AFAIK all the vaccine trials do a general "less people died after X time, therefore it's good, and we're going to just assume apropos of handwaving that it stops transmission."
ivermectin studies in the NIH registry have exactly been required to prove PCR- results throughout, not simply that there were "less deaths." for some reason vaccines are held to a lower standard than antivirals.
@phoenix @p2501 @selea
The main problem with the vaccines is pretty much that. Assumptions based on poor data, and a clear agenda. Scientific rigor went out the window for much of the vaccine process.
my current pet theory is they never did, they just suppressed the symptoms of things down to "flu-like symptoms" and since only sex workers are submitted to this level of constant testing, we didn't know that. there were always huge pushes "because herd immunity" that served to mask that they did not prevent transmission. but data shows they do reduce mortality.
which is a weird claim/observation, since it pisses off both the extremes.
@p2501 @phoenix @selea
Most vaccines arent tainted by a overwhelming political agenda. Everyone is so fervent out of fear that any realistic evaluation of the situation may weaken confidence in vaccines and the medical community.
i looked in to a few in the past and they always cried ethics concerns as to why they didn't have to run a challenge test. so they advertise efficacy on an antibody protein marker, not live contact prevention.
nobody outside the vaccine industry is allowed to do this shit. they HAVE to work on live patients or they don't get approval.
@phoenix @p2501 @selea