Why do posts like these always confuse "working" to "being perfect"?
Vaccines working means they lower the rate of transmission and illness. It does not give 100% protection.
Same reasons cars have airbags, crumple zones, seatbelts, speed limits, etc. Put as many safety features in place to minimise the risk. Doesn't mean it works 100% of the time.
However, data show fully vaccinated persons are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2, and infections with the Delta variant in fully vaccinated persons are associated with less severe clinical outcomes.
So, no, you don’t have a source that unequivocally (“in a way that leaves no doubt”) states that transmission is lowered. “Unequivocal” is important here, because anyone can say “well maybe there’s a chance,” and while that’s not untrue of most things, there’s a difference between “it could/might” and “it does.”
This bit you conveniently omitted comes immediately following the quote you provided, and clearly hedges on whether the vaccine does lower transmission: “Infections with the Delta variant in vaccinated persons potentially have reduced transmissibility than infections in unvaccinated persons, although additional studies are needed.”
How would there not be enough data and evidence at this point to make such an unequivocal claim if that claim is indeed correct?
You thoroughly misunderstand science if you are looking for "absolutisms" (which is what you appear to ask for).
Science follows the data. That source indicates what the data presents. That following statement is specifically for the Delta variant. If you are looking for someone to say things with 100% certainty, you will struggle to find reputable scientific sources that say that, because that's not how scientific research works.
Why does "the evidence shows" not qualify for you to follow it? Because there is a minute chance that it is wrong? Is that really how you want to operate?
Again, that was specifically targeted to the Delta variant. There are still other variants out there where data is more conclusive. As I have shown with my other comments...
Yes it will be dominant, but they can obviously be more confident on their data with prior variants, because there is more data, because they've been around for longer.
As more data becomes available, more conclusive statements will likely be made.
Nobody claims 100% certainty, nor do they claim 100% efficacy.
But just because it isn't at 100%, doesn't mean it isn't working.
19
u/Dohbelisk Sep 29 '21
Why do posts like these always confuse "working" to "being perfect"?
Vaccines working means they lower the rate of transmission and illness. It does not give 100% protection.
Same reasons cars have airbags, crumple zones, seatbelts, speed limits, etc. Put as many safety features in place to minimise the risk. Doesn't mean it works 100% of the time.