Covid vaccine question

[Kanin]

The people in the comments section of a biggish local newspaper are driving me crazy. As usual, it's half pro-vax/masks and half against. A big talking point among the non-vax folks is that the vaccines don't keep you from getting Covid, they just prevent the symptoms of Covid. Therefore, the vaccines are not worth getting. What's up with that?

[Corraleno]

2 minutes ago, Kanin said:

The people in the comments section of a biggish local newspaper are driving me crazy. As usual, it's half pro-vax/masks and half against. A big talking point among the non-vax folks is that the vaccines don't keep you from getting Covid, they just prevent the symptoms of Covid. Therefore, the vaccines are not worth getting. What's up with that?

That's a very intentional bit of propaganda pushed by anti-vaxxers based on the fact that vaccine manufacturers did not initially test for efficacy against asymptomatic disease (because that would have required weekly PCR testing of tens of thousands of trial participants, at a time when tests were in short supply). But experts have been saying from the beginning that it was likely that the vaccines would have some level of efficacy against infection and spread, we just didn't have a way of quantifying that initially. Now we have data from Israel showing that Pfizer has 92% efficacy in preventing infection, not just symptoms. But that doesn't stop the anti-vaxxers from continuing to lie about it.

 

[Corraleno]

The reason that argument is important, is because it makes the choice to refuse the vaccine a completely individual choice with no repercussions for the larger community. If the vaccine only prevents the development of symptoms, and does nothing to reduce community spread, then why shouldn't it be totally up to the individual if they would rather risk getting sick than getting a vaccine, since their choice doesn't impact anyone else? (Well, except the healthcare workers who have to deal with them). If they acknowledge that the vaccines do prevent infection and spread, then they can no longer justify refusal on the grounds that it affects no one but them.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Corraleno

[Kanin]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

The reason that argument is important, is because it makes the choice to refuse the vaccine a completely individual choice with no repercussions for the larger community. If the vaccine only prevents the development of symptoms, and does nothing to reduce community spread, then why shouldn't it be totally up to the individual if they would rather risk getting sick than getting a vaccine, since their choice doesn't impact anyone else? (Well, except the healthcare workers who have to deal with them). If they acknowledge that the vaccines do prevent infection and spread, then they can no longer justify refusal on the grounds that it affects no one but them.

I completely agree with you. And that's been the argument all along, the "you do you" mentality. I thought people were maybe getting better in that regard, or maybe I just stopped paying attention, but now it seems to be back with a vengeance.