And once he links to that, a link to where he got his information would be helpful as well. Tracking this shit down for context is a pain in the fucking ass and I wouldn’t bother if I hadn’t already been in the thread in question.
Jump to bottom for TLDR version…
Here’s what appears to me to be the issue. I numbered the statements for ease of response.
Melbourne stated:
- Australia has announced that border controls will not be relaxed, on the basis that vaccination does not seem to prevent transmission.
Riemann responded with:
- Cite? I have seen nothing from the Australian authorities saying that the reason for this move is specifically because they believe vaccines are ineffective at reducing transmission.
Back to Melbourne who made a statement about something the Prime Minister said in an unknown context calling it a media bite (never base your argument on a standalone and unlinked “media bite” when it comes to something like vaccination immunity):
- Mr Morrison said there was not yet “considerable clinical evidence that tells us transmission is preventable” after the jab.
And finally from Riemann again:
- That’s we don’t know yet . So your post was another instance of the common misrepresentation that I noted in the other thread, in bold below.
I am trying to stay out of debates in that thread, other than to simply counter misunderstood claims, and to be fair Riemann also tried to steer this to a different thread. But if I had participated, here’s what my take would have been.
-
That’s a very definitive sounding claim. Had the statement said “We aren’t yet sure that it prevents transmission”, I would have fully supported the claim, with the caveat that it does appear to have a positive effect on transmission to some extent to be determined. We don’t know for sure that it prevents transmission, but we certainly have some mounting evidence that it drastically reduces it. I would have asked for a cite as well, as I’d like to see if the statement was taken in the proper context.
-
This is not a direct counter to the claim, as it is speaking to reduction as opposed to complete prevention, but see no issues with the statement at all. Since we have the claim without context, it seems fair to counter with this.
-
Which is exactly the point that Riemann was trying to make.
-
As noted directly above, this seems spot on.
TLDR version:
Vaccination does not seem to prevent transmission
and
We do not yet have considerable evidence that tells us transmission is preventable
are not equivalent.
@Riemann is right.