I never had trust in them in the first place.

John Daysh,

"You’re framing this issue as if governments and health officials deliberately misled"

Well no. I've said on more than one occasion to you specifically that I don't blame government officials. They were merely mouthing what they'd been told. Governments have plenty to answer for in the whole lockdown debacle, but this isn't part of it.

Whether health spokesmen knew they were telling untruths is yet to be determined but at some point up the chain, people were aware that lies were being told.

Lies? They told us that the vaccine would halt transmission. It didn't; it couldn't; it was never designed to.

" the messaging around the vaccines was based on the data available, which initially showed they could reduce both transmission and severe illness."

You keep asserting that the data showed the vaccines could stop transmissions. But you never show that data. Why? Because it doesn't exist. Its a made up claim that isn't supported. I've already shown you all sorts of data points proving the vaccines couldn't stop the transmission, weren't designed to, and weren't even tested for that attribute. I'd ask you YET AGAIN to show the data that you claim exists, but I know that'd be futile.

Indeed your posts (the last being a good example) are replete with all sorts of assertions without the slightest attempt at evidence.

I get that you were sucked into believing the transmission falsehoods and that you can't bring yourself to admit it even to yourself. But the data keeps mounting that the vaccines didn't and couldn't stop transmissions of the dreaded WuFlu and just saying (without evidence) otherwise, doesn't cut it.

Speaking of unevidenced assertions...."Anyway, we've been though much of this a couple of times before and it was a disaster for you." I can't tell if you're delusional or just prepared to straight up lie, but its pretty funny to make these claims when its so easy to go back and check how wrong you are.

mhaze,

You keep repeating claims of "deliberate lies" and "untruths," but that misses the broader picture. Early vaccine messaging was based on the best available data, which showed they reduced both transmission and severe illness. Vaccines were never solely designed to stop transmission, but they initially did. As variants emerged, transmission reduction became less effective, but protection against severe outcomes remained strong.

You claim the data I refer to doesn’t exist, yet numerous studies (which you don't dare ask me to link to), including trials and real-world data, showed the vaccines were effective in reducing transmission and severe disease, particularly early on. If you believe this evidence doesn’t exist, I suggest you check credible sources like the CDC and WHO, which consistently supported vaccine effectiveness.

The vaccines were never meant to stop all transmission but to reduce severity and spread, especially in high-risk groups. As variants emerged, their ability to prevent infection weakened, but they still helped reduce disease severity - which in turns reduces spread.

You accuse me of making "unevidenced assertions," yet your claims about "deliberate lies" lack any evidence. If you’re going to accuse others of lacking proof, you should start by providing some for your own baseless accusations. It's easier to throw out unsupported claims than confront the facts that don't support your position.

//I can't tell if you're delusional or just prepared to straight up lie, but its pretty funny to make these claims when its so easy to go back and check how wrong you are.//

I just did. Would you perhaps like to go through this one again and show me where I was wrong?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23155&page=0

I didn't think so...

You're all bluff and bluster, mhaze. Your revisionism is clearly for "benefit" of your onlookers only, knowing they won't check your claims. Well, now they've got a link to click on.

Yes JD, that thread.

This comment pretty much covered your woeful display on that thread....

"So you call me a Monday morning quarter back and when I point out that was wrong you just move on to the next unverified assertion. Its like trying to stop rancid custard pouring through your fingers."

"which showed they reduced both transmission and severe illness."

So you keep saying. But I note that you never provide evidence for the claim that it reduced transmissions. Since the vaccines weren't designed to affect transmissions. it'd be a miracle if indeed they did .... just as it'd be a miracle if you provided evidence for your assertions.

mhaze,

I'm glad I got the right thread. It comes as no surprise to me that you don't go into any detail on why my "display" was "woeful".

I won't hold my breath.

You keep saying the vaccines weren’t designed to affect transmission, but that's just not the case. The data early on clearly showed that the vaccines did reduce transmission, at least to some degree. This wasn’t a "miracle," it’s just how vaccines work. When they reduce the severity of illness - by cutting down on symptoms like coughing, sneezing, and runny noses - it naturally reduces the spread of the virus. The less severe the symptoms, the less likely it is to spread.

For example, the CDC noted that vaccinated individuals were less likely to transmit the virus compared to those who were unvaccinated:

http://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/work.html

In fact, studies showed that the vaccines did help reduce transmission, especially in the early stages of the pandemic. And while the vaccines were designed primarily to reduce severe illness, the side effect of reduced transmission was a natural outcome of their effectiveness.

As time went on and variants emerged, the ability to prevent infection decreased, but the vaccines still had a significant role in controlling the spread, especially in high-risk groups. A study in The Lancet confirmed that vaccinated individuals were less likely to transmit the virus, particularly in the early stages of the vaccine rollout:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065%2823%2900248-1/fulltext

Another study in Nature also showed that vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections were less likely to transmit the virus compared to unvaccinated individuals:

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/12/424546/covid-19-vaccines-prior-infection-reduce-transmission-omicron

You keep asking for evidence, but it's out there in credible studies. The more you ignore it, the clearer it becomes that you're avoiding the facts in favor of pushing a narrative that doesn't hold up.

I look forward to your cherry-picking of those articles, and the papers supporting your position that you won't provide.

Struth John, this is getting ridiculous. Your evidence such as it is is woeful:

1. The CDC link says nothing about the vaccine stopping transmission. Just that the CDC will monitor that.

2. The other two are about transmission within a household and within a jail cell (which during lockdown was really the same thing) and nothing about transmissions in the community.

eg from the Lancet study...“Regardless of the benefits you see in vaccination and prior infection, there is still a high amount of transmission in this study,”

Because there is no evidence that transmissions were reduced in the community.





" the papers supporting your position that you won't provide."

That's laughable. I've provided you with amply information over the past few threads that shows that the vaccines weren't designed to stop transmission, weren't tested to see if they stopped transmission and, due to the nature of the virus and the nature of the vaccine couldn't possibly stop transmission. All of which have been like water off a duck's back in terms of educating you.

Still, even a cat with a captured mouse gets tired of playing with its prey and moves on...so too-da-loo.