And the vaccine _did_ curb transmission of the original variant. Variant Delta came later.

I don't recall the exact figures, but I believe it wasn't spectacular.

Moreover, now that Delta is a thing, aren't the ethical issues nonetheless present.

From [0]

> A recent study found that vaccinated people infected with the delta variant are 63 per cent less likely to infect people who are unvaccinated. [1]

> This is only slightly lower than with the alpha variant, says Brechje de Gier at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands, who led the study. Her team had previously found that vaccinated people infected with alpha were 73 per cent less likely to infect unvaccinated people. [2]

> What is important to realise, de Gier says, is that the full effect of vaccines on reducing transmission is even higher than 63 per cent, because most vaccinated people don’t become infected in the first place.

[0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-l...

[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.14.21264959v...

[2] https://www.newscientist.com/definition/uk-covid-19-variant-...

delta completely out competed the original variant, but for the sake of due diligence it would be nice to see data on how effective the vaccine is against the original variant

What we were sold, specifically? One of the challenges to the way this has been been politicized is that the original claims (high efficacy against serious cases, imprecise but substantial efficacy against spread, both of which have held up quite well) were often drowned out by people making much stronger claims for political reasons such as they didn't work at all, or that failing to instantaneously stop the pandemic even at vaccination rates far below the target threshold meant the approach had failed.

"Summer of freedom"

"Here we regain our freedom"

"There will not be a 4th wave"

That's what we were sold. Anyone who questioned it was called an antivax conspiracy theorist.

And the worst part is, the namecallers still think they're on the right/smart side even after miles of backpedaling.

Who specifically said that and when? What I heard was medical professionals saying we could have those things when people got vaccinated. When political posturing caused large numbers of people to refuse vaccinations, masks, and other public health precautions, those ambitions weren't met but I don't blame the people who said it was possible as much as I blame the Republican leaders who personally got vaccinated but told millions of their followers not to.

It's like saying that flossing and tooth brushing were a lie because you had cavities after only doing either half of the month.

Countries with very high vaccination rates such as Portugal or Singapore show quite clearly that all of these statements have been correct. At this point, antivaxers are the only reason why the pandemic is still an issue in industrialized countries.

Singapore may have been a poor choice of example.

In late August it was announced that 80% of the Singapore population was now vaccinated against COVID-19.[1] However, in September and October there has been a dramatic surge in cases and deaths in that country.[2]

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/singapore-fully-v...

[2] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/singapore/

It's true that it's a dramatic increase, but the death rate still seems to be considerably lower, which is what you'd expect from a vaccine which is not sterilizing. The big question I'd have is what this would look like adjusted for age since American vaccination rates for the highest-risk age groups were also pretty high.

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...

Nit. CFR may not be the best measure, as it is very sensitive to the level of testing, which I expect is higher in a small homogenous country like Singapore. Alternatively, raw deaths per million shows closer numbers, though unclear if Singapore peaked yet.

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...

Yeah, I definitely would want a professional analyst to compare things. The main one I’d be interested in is age-matched rates since as we saw with the Israeli data it’s easy to hit confounds like Simpson’s paradox.

And if what we were/are being sold is reduced severe illness then that seems like a personal issue and the mandates don't make sense.

I get it, if beds are in use by severely ill Covid patients that means less beds for others... then let the bed owners decide how they wish to allocate bed usage, just like some doctors are refusing to see non vaccinated patients.

Yes, and rather than admit this plainly observable fact, incorporate this new information, then base policy choices on what we now know, we still have "health officials" and politicians from one side of the aisle sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes, and shouting "Nah nah nah I can't hear you!" as they push illogical (and arguably wildly immoral) policies like vaccine mandates and perpetual masking and an overall unending bizarro world. I don't know how else to describe COVID anymore other than it's become the world's largest secular religion.

This is how the lead author of the study we are discussing interprets the new information: “Our paper, which had a global impact within 24 hours of publication, provides important support for the following crucial public health actions: vaccinate the unvaccinated ASAP; give boosters to all those who are eligible ASAP; maintain social and public health measures despite vaccination.” (This is the fifth paragraph the linked article).

Even if the vaccines don't entirely curb transmission, they reduce it and reduce the risk of severe illness. While for an individual this might impact their decision making framework, I don't see how it should change the framework for public health officials.

> politicians from one side of the aisle sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes, and shouting "Nah nah nah I can't hear you!"

Politicians on the other side of the aisle are attempting to ban any COVID prevention measures at all. I agree that vaccine mandates aren't the only tool available to us, but it's hard to argue with the mandates when there are people fighting against mandatory testing, mask wearing, and social distancing.

Oh vaccines reduce it by some vague amount, if at all, to vaccinated people whom you admit are at far less risk having been vaccinated? Oh well then go nuts, put in whatever draconian rules you want if it may or may not reduce some spread by some minor amount and means that someone gets COVID in 2023 instead of 2022. That's all the justification we need! Quarantine the kids. Fire police. Make everyone hate each other. Sounds totally worth it!! Yay!!

This is the cult of safetyism. A total inability to process risk/reward and tradeoffs, and eschewing basic logic for "protection" whether real or imagined no matter the cost. All I sincerely ask to people such as yourself is, "What is your long-term plan? Is this forever for you?" Usually, I watch as their brains simply break down on the side of the highway. They have no answer because their logic is so bad they get stuck in an eddy with no way to get out. Welcome to the Church of COVID.

And no, conservatives aren't banning prevention measures. Everyone alive is free to get vaccinated (and wear a mask) as most have even in places like Florida. They're banning punitive rules, and whether it's Florida or Texas or all of Scandinavia, they've demonstrated that there are no worse outcomes from simply allowing people to make their own health choices without figuratively putting a gun to their heads (mandates) or making them do anything they don't want to (masks). Meanwhile, half the world upon seeing this: "Nah nah nah I can't hear you!"

>Fire police.

Really?

Most crime-ridden city in America is vehemently trying to put in a policy which would cause potentially almost a third of their police fired. Again, cult of safetyism run amok. This is what fatally flawed logic gets you.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-police-fop-john-catanzara-ma...

If a third of an underperforming police force doesn't respect either public safety or the law, the logic of replacing them seems impeccable to me...

Behold, an Orthodox Covidian! So righteous! So caring! So noble! So educated!

Incorporating this new information would lead to policies that support vaccine mandates and masking.

But then again, that's always been what I thought the policies should be since there was never any strong claims to vaccines preventing transmission.

How is one supposed to debate with someone who thinks the sun rises in the west? If you can't even process the basic facts about vaccines - they don't reduce spread but reduce risk of complication - that logically make mandates and masks useless (which is now also being proven in real-world data), I mean, there's no point in discussion. You can say the sky is red as many times as you want, that doesn't make it true. Besides the fact that by your logic this is a new ridiculous equilibrium for life, with PERPETUAL quarantines, testing, masks, employer enforcement of personal medical choices, passports to do anything, and more broadly everyone hating each other's guts. Sounds fun!!! Totally worth it!!! Places like Sweden and Florida don't count!!!

You're replying to a thread devoted to discuss evidence the efficacy with which vaccines reduce spread, in which they note that the transmission rate is much lower in doubly vaccinated households than unvaccinated household, and also comment that they were a little surprised and disappointed that the vaccine was not more efficient in reducing transmission, as other vaccines often are.

I don't think you're in a position to lecture people about inability to process basic facts if your partisan screed depends on ignoring this to insist that "they don't reduce spread" is an established fact about vaccines. How is one supposed to debate with someone who insists the sun rises in the west, indeed?

The only person with a reality perception issue is you. Your posts are extremely ironic.

That is not what was sold.