Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

refurb

No it is not true. Please don't be anti-science!

Take a look at the vaccine studies - only J&J actually tested the effect on transmission, and J&J was hardly used.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines never tested transmission. So why would Fauci make such a claim?

Pfizer trial protocols: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_f...

Moderna trial protocols: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389/suppl_f...

But what did Fauci say on national news?

“So even though there are breakthrough infections with vaccinated people, almost always the people are asymptomatic and the level of virus is so low it makes it extremely unlikely — not impossible but very, very low likelihood — that they’re going to transmit it,” Fauci said.

Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” - June 16, 2021

View on HN

Because Fauci is a doctor and the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were shown to prevent or eliminate symptoms that lead to further spread of the disease, such as coughing and sneezing, and he could extrapolate from there.

So you're saying he just made things up?

An expert opinion based on knowledge of virology and the impact of the vaccine on symptoms that lead to transmission is "making things up" much in the same way the Manhattan project "made up" nuclear weapons.

While the vaccines do not eliminate all transmission, they can help. Studies done after distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines began, including research by Pfizer, did find that the company’s shot reduced asymptomatic infections in addition to symptomatic cases with earlier variants of the virus. Researchers in the United Kingdom reported in a February observational study that Pfizer’s vaccine helped cut transmission of the alpha and delta variants.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-pfizer-transmission-eu...

> An expert opinion based on knowledge of virology and the impact of the vaccine on symptoms that lead to transmission is "making things up" much in the same way the Manhattan project "made up" nuclear weapons.

I don't remember the Manhattan project making any public statements that had an impact on public health?

What kind of a comparison is that?

They didn't make public statements because they were a secret military project. Not sure how that's a gotcha. They were still scientists using mostly untested theory to develop a weapon that certainly had a major public health impact. And other impacts.

> They didn't make public statements because they were a secret military project.

Yeah, that's my point.

How is your example at all relevant?

If you can't see how it is relevant then it is pretty clear how you draw medically inaccurate conclusions about stuff that has been well researched.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com