If they lied about virtually else, why should I make the assumption that they're being honest about the effectiveness of the vaccine about symptom reduction or spread reduction?
The common refrain is "it's not proven to reduce transmission" not "it does nothing to reduce transmission." Most vaccines reduce transmission, including the flu vaccine, so a reduction in transmission would be completely in line with expectations.
Preliminary studies are already coming in showing the extant COVID vaccines (at least the Pfizer one) reduce secondary transmission.
They're gonna do what they did with masks. Wait until about nine years of studies roll in showing masks don't fucking do anything before finally saying "Oh ok you didn't need to wear a mask that whole time."
That's all well and good except the vaccine companies have been made immune to all legal challenges in at least the US.
"It's not proven to reduce transmission" under that context might as well mean it does nothing. They're under no pressure not to exaggerate or flat out lie about the outcome.
How does it reduce the spread if it does little to nothing to combat infections or infectious transmission?
"The vax won't stop you from getting infected. It won't stop you from infecting others." is your starting line, right?
To get to the endpoint of "still reduces spread", you need to add two of three more (likely but not guaranteed) facts into the mix:
"Coughing is among the best ways to spread a lung illness."
"If you recover quicker, you cough on less people overall."
"If your symptoms are lessened, you cough less often, and/or with less range"
They then combine these elements with "The vax makes you recover quicker/experience less severe forms" to get the conclusion "the vax reduces spread".
If they lied about virtually else, why should I make the assumption that they're being honest about the effectiveness of the vaccine about symptom reduction or spread reduction?
The common refrain is "it's not proven to reduce transmission" not "it does nothing to reduce transmission." Most vaccines reduce transmission, including the flu vaccine, so a reduction in transmission would be completely in line with expectations.
Preliminary studies are already coming in showing the extant COVID vaccines (at least the Pfizer one) reduce secondary transmission.
They're gonna do what they did with masks. Wait until about nine years of studies roll in showing masks don't fucking do anything before finally saying "Oh ok you didn't need to wear a mask that whole time."
That's all well and good except the vaccine companies have been made immune to all legal challenges in at least the US.
"It's not proven to reduce transmission" under that context might as well mean it does nothing. They're under no pressure not to exaggerate or flat out lie about the outcome.
Oh I agree. If they truly believe in the safety and efficacy of their vaccines they wouldn't need legal protections.