mhaze,

You’re still avoiding the real discussion by playing word games and shifting goalposts.

On the study:
You’re fixated on The Lancet study because you think it’s a "gotcha," but you were the one who introduced it as evidence that vaccines didn’t stop transmission. I pointed out that it focused on later variants, which is why it doesn’t tell the full story about early vaccine effectiveness. If you actually want to discuss whether vaccines reduced transmission early on, why aren’t you addressing studies from early 2021, before Delta and Omicron emerged? Are you deliberately ignoring that phase of the pandemic?

And yes, reducing symptomatic infection by 94% in early trials absolutely does affect transmission. Fewer infected people means fewer people spreading the virus. Are you suggesting that someone who never gets infected can still transmit a virus they don’t have?

On Pfizer and transmission:
Your quote from Janine Small about Pfizer not testing for transmission before rollout is misleading. Of course, they didn’t test for transmission in their initial trials - because vaccines are developed to prevent illness, not specifically to stop spread. But later real-world studies showed that vaccinated people were less likely to transmit the virus in the early stages of the pandemic. Why are you pretending those studies don’t exist?

You also keep saying "the vaccine didn’t stop transmission" - but who ever claimed it would completely stop it? Early messaging was based on the data at the time, which showed a significant reduction in infections and spread. When the virus evolved, so did the understanding. Why do you keep acting like changing scientific conclusions in response to new evidence is the same as lying?

On Mandates and rhetoric:
You’ve abandoned discussing the science and are now making an emotional argument about vaccine mandates. That’s a separate discussion. The core issue here is whether vaccines ever reduced transmission, and the evidence says they did - especially before variants evolved.

If you actually want to argue in good faith, why won’t you acknowledge all the evidence instead of cherry-picking soundbites that fit your narrative?

John Daysh,

" but you were the one who introduced it as evidence that vaccines didn’t stop transmission"

Wow, just wow. YOU introduced the study. I find it fascinating that people are prepared to just straight up lie here when its so easy to go back and see the truth.
You introduced the study and then, when you realised,(...well actually when I pointed out) that it didn't say what you thought it said, you've been trying to disown it ever since. All rather comical.

Then you asserted that there were parts of the study that supported your daffy claims but when asked for evidence of that ("Where? Where in the study you cited to support your claims does it say anything like that?") you reverted to the ad hominem. All very comical.

" Of course, they didn’t test for transmission in their initial trials - because vaccines are developed to prevent illness, not specifically to stop spread."

Oh good. That's what I've been saying from the outset - well actually for years now . Glad you caught up....or caught on.

"You also keep saying "the vaccine didn’t stop transmission" - but who ever claimed it would completely stop it?"

The authorities that I've been saying should be held to account. Also the authorities who remained silent in the face of outright lies.

eg Biden ""You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations." (Hilariously he got the virus a month later).

""Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else."

/cont

/cont

"Vaccination is our way out of this pandemic—it protects you, your family, and the community by stopping the spread." Australia Government.

And plenty more. Worse, the people who knew that to be false remained, and in some cases were forced to remain, silent.

"You’ve abandoned discussing the science and are now making an emotional argument about vaccine mandates. That’s a separate discussion."

No, my original post was about the lies around lockdown, mandates etc. The science is settled (well for most!!) and you tried to change the issue to minutiae around percentages of n95 effectiveness etc.

Entire populations were lockdown. Careers were destroyed. People cancelled. Entire populations forced you take largely untested drugs. People with a few brain cells to rub together know this. The people who did it know it. That's why they hope it seeps into history.

mhaze,

You’re clearly more interested in “scoring” points than in sticking to facts. Although, I do like the performances you so often start your replies with:

"This is getting ridiculous..."
"But but but...."
"Wow, just wow."

Are they attempts to set the tone, or is it to dissuade lazy readers from feeling the need to go any further?

The Lancet study:
I mentioned The Lancet in the broader context of vaccine impact on transmission. You were the one who quoted from the Singanayagam study to argue vaccines didn’t reduce spread. I responded by pointing out that the study focused on Delta, not the original strain. Yet you claimed I introduced it, as if I were backing out of my own source. That’s false. I was replying to your quote.

And if you think that study applies to all variants, including the ones vaccines were first developed for, why does it explicitly mention “circulating variants” (i.e., Delta)? Are you overlooking that context, or just hoping no one notices?

The “lies” about transmission:
Yes, Biden and others overpromised. Messaging got ahead of the data at times. But quoting a politician’s soundbite doesn’t prove that scientists or health bodies engaged in a deliberate cover-up. Overconfident messaging in a crisis is not the same thing as deception. It’s like climate deniers who point to a bad quote from Tim Flannery pretending it debunks multiple fields science.

And you keep repeating that people were “forced to stay silent.” Who exactly? Because plenty of scientists and doctors expressed dissenting views publicly, and their statements are still easy to find.

Your broader claims:
You suggest the “the science is settled,” while ignoring early data that undercuts your position. People were “forced” to take “largely untested drugs.” The vaccines went through large-scale clinical trials and were tracked globally. You say you’re just seeking “accountability,” but what you’re really doing is blurring the line between fallibility and malice.

You treat every evolving guideline and imperfect message as a betrayal, but if you can’t distinguish between error, uncertainty, and lies, that says more about your mindset than what actually happened.

I cant wait for the next one when we finally get rid of the stupid people.

"Because what you’re citing only applies to later variants like Delta and Omicron, not the earlier strains, which is exactly what I pointed out."

Where? Where in the study you cited to support your claims does it say anything like that? I can't help but notice and point out that you've dodged that."

You make up claims that you think will fly and when bounced on it just pretend it never happened.

And then claim credibility.

Re Biden and co.... I said from the outset I don't blame the pollies. But where were the scientists rushing to set the record straight. When Biden and loads of other people in authority said things like "You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations" where were the 'honest' scientists or even the Big Pharma companies rushing to set the record straight? They weren't there because what Biden et al was saying was part of the narrative they wanted to push.