Posted on 03/27/2023 2:51:14 PM PDT by nickcarraway
That is not a good look for PH to make stuff up on the fly. Granted the early versions of Civid were really nasty to elderly people and people with serious health conditions. The same government officials that pushed for cancelling March Madness to limit the spread, turned around and pushed for the closings of universities and sending students back home...
mRNA gene therapy was not a form of vaccination until the definition was changed to include them in 2020.
And since they now are known to neither prevent catching the disease or preventing its spread, I doubt they fit in the revised definition.
Sorry, I still don't know. Please forgive me, but I do not hold you to be a reliable source. I might even give you negative epistemic weight.
Efficiency against the original variant could well have been close to 100% and approaching 60% against the latest variants.
I agree those are not logically exclusive. But it does not save the claim by Fauci and others. The protection (to whatever extent it really existed) faded too quickly for the claim to be true without some provision to the claim.
As far as we know this claim *might* have been true: "It is very unlikely you will get covid-19 in the week following one of your mRNA boosters".
However this claim is certainly not true: "It is very unlikely you will get covid-19 during this pandemic outbreak if you take one of these covid-19 vaccines".
I allow it is unfair to take them literally as a promise that 100% of the population who takes a jab will not get covid-19 ever. However considering how fast the protection (to whatever extent it really ever existed) fizzled out the statement requires the speakers mother or somebody with an ulterior motive to be defendable.
AndyTheBear wrote: “Sorry, I still don’t know. Please forgive me, but I do not hold you to be a reliable source. I might even give you negative epistemic weight.”
Have you seen post number 62, this thread where the poster makes this very claim.
The claim was in your words from post 57:
Do you agree with this claim often made by vaccine skeptics: “These can’t be vaccines because you can take the vaccine and still catch the disease”.
And post 62 says:
mRNA gene therapy was not a form of vaccination until the definition was changed to include them in 2020.
And since they now are known to neither prevent catching the disease or preventing its spread, I doubt they fit in the revised definition.
You seem confused, or perhaps you are just not good at reading and understanding what people say in general.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.