No, you didn't, mhaze.

//I already did. They confirmed that they knew it didn't stop transmission and were so sure they didn't even bother checking.//

The original Phase III trials were designed to measure prevention of symptomatic disease and severe outcomes. They were not primarily designed as transmission studies. That is not the same as knowing the vaccine had no effect on transmission.

The early data showed strong reductions in infection rates against the original strain, which implied reduced transmission probability. Later variants weakened that effect. Where's the evidence that regulators or manufacturers knew, at the time those statements were made, that vaccines did not reduce transmission?

//Untested drugs that turned out to be unsafe.//

Compared to what? Infection risk? Hospitalisation risk? Age-stratified mortality?

"Unsafe" requires a comparative risk analysis.

They were tested in large Phase III trials before authorisation and then administered under extensive post-market surveillance. Were there side effects? Yes. Were there rare adverse events? Yes. That's true of many vaccines and medicines.

You are alleging prior knowledge of falsity and systemic deception. That requires documentation showing awareness of falsehood at the time, not retrospective reinterpretation of evolving evidence.

If such documentation exists, cite it.

Otherwise this is a case of overconfidence in early data during a rapidly changing viral landscape, not proof of coordinated lying.

JD,

now you're arguing it was understandable that they didn't test whether the claims that it stopped transmission were true.

Yes. that what I said from the outset. The vaccine could never stop transmission and therefore there was no point testing for it. But the only way to justify the mandate was to claim otherwise.

Since you now agree with my original point, I think I'll leave it at that.

mhaze,

No, I have not agreed that "the vaccine could never stop transmission." That's your formulation, not mine.

Vaccines do not require sterilising immunity to reduce transmission. Early data in 2021 showed significant reductions in infection against the original strain. Reduced infection probability reduces transmission probability. That was the basis of the mandate argument, whether one agreed with it or not.

Saying the Phase III trials were not designed as transmission studies is not the same as saying authorities knew transmission reduction was impossible. At the time, infection reduction data strongly suggested transmission reduction.

Your claim now is stronger than before: that it "could never" stop transmission. On what evidence was that impossibility known in early 2021?

You're using hindsight from later variants to retroactively declare inevitability. That's not proof of prior knowledge. It's retrospective certainty.

If you want to argue mandates were disproportionate, that's a defensible debate. But asserting impossibility and prior knowledge of falsity requires evidence from the time the statements were made.

That evidence still hasn't been shown. Back to you, I'm afraid.

I'm with mhaze on kudos for the great article. Orwell is usually instructive. I like the reference to noblesse oblige- others talk about those that have standards limiting their own power- others still don't believe in limits to their own power. What is the wiser policy? It is usually better to convince rather than to force, soft power, sometimes you have to say "I'm going for a walk to look at our enemy", you can join me. Trust.

Canem Malum,

The idea of power restrained by internal standards is appealing. "Noblesse oblige" has a long intellectual pedigree. But personal virtue is not the same thing as institutional constraint.

Every movement believes it will limit itself more wisely than its predecessor. The real test is what structural safeguards exist when persuasion fails and coercion becomes tempting.

Convincing rather than forcing is usually preferable. But all modern states exercise some degree of compulsion - tax law, quarantine law, criminal law, regulatory law. The question isn't whether power exists. It's how it's bounded and justified.

Trust also cuts both ways. Trust in institutions requires transparency and proportionality. But trust in counter-elites requires evidence they won't simply exercise power differently once they hold it.

The wiser policy is not simply "soft power," but clearly defined limits that survive changes in who is in charge.

And no, the article was objectively bad.