> Because vaccination prevents you from spreading covid to others...

I agree with your general point, but to be clear, it likely reduces your chances of doing that, to some extent. It does not prevent you from spreading COVID.

Those two sentences are equivalent, not contradictory. We commonly say that condoms prevent pregnancy and STD's, but they're not perfect either.

If the vaccine prevents one case of spread while not preventing another, it has still prevented COVID spread.

"Not perfect" and "has a small impact" aren't the same. If condoms had the same failure rate in preventing STDs/pregnancy as the COVID vaccines do for preventing infection, we wouldn't use them. Luckily, preventing infection isn't the only goal of vaccines, so it's still worth getting for the protection from severe illness and death.

> If condoms had the same failure rate in preventing STDs/pregnancy as the COVID vaccines do for preventing infection, we wouldn't use them.

No? If they were the best form of contraception we had (which is the relevant comparison w.r.t. vaccines), of course people would use them! It would make abstinence marginally more appealing, of course, but there are already people who don't want or can't afford a pregnancy who unwisely choose to forgo contraception. There would certainly be an enormous number of people who would choose to use condoms rather than forgo sex entirely.

If vaccination prevents you from catching covid, then it has prevented you from spreading covid to those you would have otherwise.

If vaccination causes you to experience an early immune response, versus several asymptomatic days while unknowingly contagious, then it has prevented you from spreading covid to some of those you would have otherwise.

If vaccination results in a less severe infection with lower viral load, then it has prevented you from spreading covid to some of those you would have otherwise.

My reply was intentionally simple in order to drive home a point about selfish versus societal viewpoints.

> If vaccination prevents you from catching covid, then it has prevented you from spreading covid to those you would have otherwise.

Depends on what you mean by "covid" here. If you're referring to the virus, then no - this is a misconception. The vaccines at best only reduce symptoms, they don't stop infection or transmission.

> versus several asymptomatic days while unknowingly contagious

This was also an early guess that turned out to be wrong. We've known this wasn't a thing for years, at least before these vaccines.

> My reply was intentionally simple in order to drive home a point about selfish versus societal viewpoints.

Right now, getting vaccinated is the selfish action because it's likely to turn you into an asymptomatic spreader. At least when unvaccinated you'll know to stay home.

> Right now, getting vaccinated is the selfish action because it's likely to turn you into an asymptomatic spreader. At least when unvaccinated you'll know to stay home.

This is a) insane and b) directly contradicts the point you tried to make above it.

How does it contradict it? These vaccines reduce symptoms without stopping infection/transmission -> you're helping yourself without helping the community -> it's the selfish action.

You can't argue asymptomatic spread isn't a thing, and then claim the vaccines are bad because they cause asymptomatic spread.

> > We've known this wasn't a thing for years, at least before these vaccines.

If I remember the timeline right it was mid/late 2020 we realized that assumption was wrong, then about a year later it was apparent the vaccines weren't stopping the spread. So yeah, my statements are entirely consistent: There wasn't before the vaccines, there was after.

Vaccination has only limited and temporary effects in reducing the risk of transmission. I would encourage everyone eligible to protect themselves by getting vaccinated but this does very little to prevent it from spreading in society.

https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2116597

Spread is just one social effect. I think the GP meant that there are plenty of other civic motivations, like not overloading medical institutions and minimizing the extent to which society needs to be halted to prevent particularly harmful spread.

By all means I would encourage everyone eligible to get vaccinated. But there was never any valid reason to halt society in the first place, so your comment is a non sequitur.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was routine for medical institutions to be overwhelmed by respiratory viruses. We didn't halt society, we just accepted the consequences and moved on.

https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...

https://peterattiamd.com/covid-19-current-state-omicron/

There's a significant difference in kind between "a nasty cold or flu season" and the excess mortality rate we've seen during COVID, particularly earlier in the pandemic[1].

There's no non sequitur here: getting vaccinated reduces every demographic's risk of serious illness (even when serious illness is not especially likely!), which in turn reduces the burden on healthcare institutions. That is a good civic reason to get vaccinated that has nothing to do with transmission.

[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

"there was never any valid reason to halt society in the first place"

Look whatever you think about anything full hospitals everywhere and people in Spain being left for dead in old folks homes were definitely real things - I am not sure about your definition of "halt society" here but policy choices that reduced social contact in indoor spaces was absolutely required. You just can't rewrite history if that is what you are trying to imply.