[3fe9a03ccd14ca5]

I feel this way about the vaccine. “95% effective at preventing infection” etc etc. I really believed it would stop transmission which we also know now is not true. Should have been more skeptical.

And before you say “that was before variants” remember that wasn’t the messaging. The message was “it’s safe and effective and protects others” and also “employer: based on what the CDC says take the vaccine or lose your job”

A lot of damaged trust in institutions these last few years.

[shakezula]

> believed it would stop transmission

It did lower transmission. Multiple studies confirmed this.

> remember that wasn’t the messaging

Yes, it wasn’t, because it’s generally considered bad practice to attempt to predict the future, and if they had you’d be complaining about them attempting to predict the future.

> the message was “it’s safe and effective and protects others”

All of the data agrees with this statement.

> A lot of damaged trust in institutions these last few years

Yes, I wonder why that is

[s1artibartfast]

This is a strong argument for honest messaging which includes the appropriate caveats

[wellthatsawrap1]

> Yes I wonder why that is

Because they lied to us.

[themitigating]

The damage and trust lost was caused more by opportunistic politicans and mentally ill people than anything done by "institutions" assuming you mean Pfizer.

[s1artibartfast]

I think institutions in this sense means the CDC,Who, and various governments

[jjulius]

>I feel this way about the vaccine. “95% effective at preventing infection” etc etc. I really believed it would stop transmission which we also know now is not true.

The messaging was always that it would reduce the severity of the infection, not that it would stop transmission.

[MichaelCollins]

> not that it would stop transmission.

Oh yes it was, that was certainly a big component of the messaging.

How can you be so cruel? Take it for grandma.

[mberning]

The fact that people turn to sophistry in defense of valid criticisms is evidence enough that people were mislead. Never mind whether it was intentional or out of ignorance. 95% effective at what? Preventing death? Preventing serious disease? Preventing spread? Preventing variants? The truth has come out and it was far from "95% effective" at anything.

[ed25519FUUU]

Everyone I know got covid either vax or not, so that number seems kind of meaningless.

[galaxyLogic]

I would say what NIH put out may have been "propaganda". But propaganda for a good reason: Saving the civilization. Think Will Smith/I am a Legend. So far we know that vaccines did very little harm and very much saved lives. And they saved lives because many people believed what NIH was saying. In other words they made a good effort in good faith.

Of course if they go too inaccurate they will lose their credibility which is not good. So why would they do so, I think they didn't.

[omginternets]

>Think Will Smith/I am a Legend.

Certainly there was great cause for concern and need for prudence in the early days of the pandemic, but COVID-19 was never an end-of-the-world scenario. Your appeal to I am Legend reinforces the parent's argument.

>So far we know that vaccines did very little harm and very much saved lives. And they saved lives because many people believed what NIH was saying. In other words they made a good effort in good faith.

You are begging the question: did the benefits outweigh the cost?

To answer this, we need good data, unencumbered scientific debate, and time. There is reason to suspect at least some of the data and processes used to authorize vaccines were of poor quality, or perhaps even subverted; it is hopefully clear that scientific debate is more restricted than usual; and, we have not had time to observe any long-term effects of vaccines, especially on populations for which the risk of COVID-19 is extremely small (e.g. children).

There is a vast middle-ground between anti-vaxxer and vax-maximalist that a reasonable and prudent person can occupy.

>Of course if they go too inaccurate they will lose their credibility which is not good. So why would they do so, I think they didn't.

You are presupposing that our institutions are rational actors, and that they are acting deliberately. Institutions can fail to perform their essential functions without malice. A conspiracy is not required for a more-dangerous-than-COVID vaccine policy to have taken place.

Whether or not this actually happened is a matter of nuanced debate.