"Oxford Covid vaccine hit 90% success rate thanks to dosing error"

@humy said
Which one? Whichever one you are referring to here, you are wrong and just moronically denying the evidence with your usual anti-vax BS;

For the Pfizer vaccine;
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8
"...Scientists welcome the first compelling evidence that a vaccine can prevent COVID-19. ..."

For the Oxford vaccine;
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-20-new ...[text shortened]... early safety concerns and induces strong immune responses in both parts of the immune system.
..."

The only vaccine available to Americans right now. Only one has emergency vaccine approval.

Covid 19 is the disease, not the virus. Try to remember that.

@metal-brain said
The only vaccine available to Americans right now.

That would be the one that Trump, your hero, now approves of, which is the Pfizer/BioNTech one. Even a broken clock gets the time right twice a day and in this case Trump is right in approving it. Are you saying Trump approves of a vaccine that hasn't gone through trials that shows it works? Explain yourself...

So when you just said "There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity.", you were referring to this one, which WAS one of the two ones I mentioned;
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/10/1013914/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-chart-covid-19/
"...After two weeks, hardly anyone with the vaccine was getting covid-19. But the disease kept striking those who got the placebo with clockwork regularity...."
This above directly contradicts your claim there is no such "evidence". Explain to us all how the above isn't evidence...

Covid 19 is the disease, not the virus. Try to remember that.

Copy & paste what I just posted in my last post;
For the Pfizer vaccine;
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8
"...Scientists welcome the first compelling evidence that a vaccine can prevent Covid 19 . ..."
So I already showed in my post evidence that this vaccine works against Covid 19, not just the virus. Try to remember that.

@Kewpie

You might be right, but I took it (also having watched a few times) to refer to that class (mRNA) of vaccine. Time will tell.

@humy said
That would be the one that Trump, your hero, now approves of, which is the Pfizer/BioNTech one. Even a broken clock gets the time right twice a day and in this case Trump is right in approving it. Are you saying Trump approves of a vaccine that hasn't gone through trials that shows it works? Explain yourself...

So when you just said "There is no evidence the vaccine provides ...[text shortened]... evidence that this vaccine works against Covid 19, not just the virus. Try to remember that.

Covid 19 is the disease, not the virus.

You can have SARS2 and not have Covid 19.
It is called an asymptomatic carrier of the virus.
The Pfizer vaccine only prevents the symptoms, not infection.

The news media told us that asymptomatic carriers were contagious and that was the reason for lockdowns and school closings. Now they are saying they are probably not contagious, but not sure.

They clearly do not know if asymptomatic carriers are contagious. Either that or they lied at some point in time about it.

@metal-brain said
Covid 19 is the disease, not the virus.

Yes, we already knew, thanks.

The Pfizer vaccine only prevents the symptoms, not infection.

that is in effect saying the vaccine DOES give immunity from the disease. And this is after you said " There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity. ". You make no sense.
If a vaccine prevents you from ever getting symptoms from a virus then, by definition, it gives you immunity from the disease the virus would otherwise give you. That's just what immunity from disease means.

...Now they are saying they are probably not contagious, but not sure.

since being contagious doesn't necessarily mean you must not be immune from the disease yourself, you make no point.
There is no contradiction in a vaccine giving you immunity from a disease while failing to stop you being a carrier and spreading the virus. Therefore, the absence of evidence that a vaccine prevents the virus being contagious doesn't debunk any evidence that the vaccine gives you immunity.

@humy said
Yes, we already knew, thanks.

The Pfizer vaccine only prevents the symptoms, not infection.

that is in effect saying the vaccine DOES give immunity from the disease. And this is after you said " There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity. ". You make no sense.
If a vaccine prevents you from ever getting symptoms from a virus then, by definition, it gi ...[text shortened]... prevents the virus being contagious doesn't debunk any evidence that the vaccine gives you immunity.

Don't you read properly?

Covid 19 is NOT a virus, it is the disease that results from the virus. The Pfizer vaccine does NOT give immunity to the virus.
That means the vaccine does not give immunity to the SARS2 virus, making them asymptomatic carriers.

They told us asymptomatic carriers were contagious.
Now Fauci says that may not be the case, but they don't know yet. In other words, don't count on it.

They changed their story. In any case, it is premature to imply the vaccine will lead to herd immunity. It shouldn't even be called a vaccine. It doesn't work like a normal vaccine. A normal vaccine gives you immunity from the virus, not merely the symptoms.

@metal-brain said
Don't you read properly?

Covid 19 is NOT a virus,

That's what I just clearly implied and already knew. Don't you read properly?

The Pfizer vaccine does NOT give immunity to the virus.

Right, but the Pfizer vaccine does give immunity to the disease, which is what is meant by immunity, thus your assertion that it doesn't is false.

The rest of your post is irrelevant for the reasons I already explained.

@humy said
That's what I just clearly implied and already knew. Don't you read properly?

The Pfizer vaccine does NOT give immunity to the virus.

Right, but the Pfizer vaccine does give immunity to the disease, which is what is meant by immunity, thus your assertion that it doesn't is false.

The rest of your post is irrelevant for the reasons I already explained.

You don't get it.
No immunity to the virus means no herd immunity.

@metal-brain said
You don't get it.
No immunity to the virus means no herd immunity.

your claim was;
"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity." (your quote)
and not
"There is no evidence the vaccine provides herd immunity."
so you are obviously now desperately trying to change your claim after being embarrassed into shown to be wrong.
When laypeople and/or experts talk about vaccines providing immunity in everyday English, they obviously mean by default immunity to just the specific people given the vaccine and, unless otherwise explicitly indicated such as by with the word 'herd', not herd immunity i.e. not including collectively the people not given the vaccine and thus we would obviously naturally assume that former was what you meant by that claim of yours. So, in the context of immunity from a vaccine, the word 'immunity' without the word 'herd' in front of it or some other indicator it is referring specifically to herd immunity, is meant by default immunity to (obviously) mean not herd immunity but rather just immunity to the individuals given the vaccine.
Thus your claim of "There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity." is false.

I just showed my links that there is evidence the vaccine provides immunity to the individual people given it, which is what is meant by default by the word 'immunity'. Here are them yet again;

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/10/1013914/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-chart-covid-19/
"...After two weeks, hardly anyone with the vaccine was getting covid-19. But the disease kept striking those who got the placebo with clockwork regularity...."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8
"...Scientists welcome the first compelling evidence that a vaccine can prevent Covid 19 . ..."

and notice how it says Covid 19 and not the virus itself, so if you use that straw man yet again i.e. of yet again making out they were talking about the virus itself and not merely the disease it causes, you will convince nobody here.

@humy said
your claim was;
"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity." (your quote)
and not
"There is no evidence the vaccine provides herd immunity."
so you are obviously now desperately trying to change your claim after being embarrassed into shown to be wrong.
When laypeople and/or experts talk about vaccines providing immunity in everyday English, they obviously ...[text shortened]... talking about the virus itself and not merely the disease it causes, you will convince nobody here.

There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity from the virus.
You cannot achieve herd immunity without immunity to the virus.

That is a fact. It is not my fault you are fact challenged. I proved you wrong. Your irrational denial doesn't change that fact. Everyone on here knows you are wrong. Denial doesn't change that either.

I know you are incapable of admitting you are wrong, so I will settle for you continuing to make a fool of yourself instead. I will freely give you the rope to hang yourself. No problem. 🙂

@metal-brain said
There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity from the virus.

But there is evidence the vaccine provides immunity from COVID 19 disease. I have already repeatedly shown links showing this thus proving your claim wrong.
Here is the links to that evidence yet again;

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/10/1013914/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-chart-covid-19/
"...After two weeks, hardly anyone with the vaccine was getting covid-19. But the disease kept striking those who got the placebo with clockwork regularity...."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8
"...Scientists welcome the first compelling evidence that a vaccine can prevent Covid 19 . ..."

Well?
Do you claim the above links lie? If so, show us your evidence...

You cannot achieve herd immunity without immunity to the virus.

Which is irrelavant to your original claim which wasn't of herd immunity and wasn't of the virus itself but COVID 19 disease. Reminder
"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity." (your quote)
No mention of "herd" their!
Yet again you persist in your pretence that your false claim was something other than what it was and you obviously have been embarrassed into changing your false claim to one that might not be false, hoping nobody would notice, after I proved it to be false. After I scored a goal, you just moved the goal posts to a straw man position I didn't make. You convince nobody here.

That is a fact.

Yes, and its also irrelevant to any of my claims because I never said/implied the contrary to "You cannot achieve herd immunity without immunity to the virus. ". Your new stupid straw man that convinces nobody here?

@humy said
But there is evidence the vaccine provides immunity from COVID 19 disease. I have already repeatedly shown links showing this thus proving your claim wrong.
Here is the links to that evidence yet again;

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/10/1013914/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-chart-covid-19/
"...After two weeks, hardly anyone with the vaccine was getting covid-19. ...[text shortened]... erd immunity without immunity to the virus. ". Your new stupid straw man that convinces nobody here?

Herd immunity doesn't happen when the vaccine doesn't give immunity to the virus. Let me make this clear since you ignored me the last time. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE PFIZER VACCINE GIVES IMMUNITY TO THE VIRUS. That means no herd immunity, so of course they say continue wearing masks and little will change. They know the virus is going to keep spreading even if all people were to get the vaccine. The vaccine is merely intended to prevent the symptoms, NOT the virus!

YouTube

You falsely claimed there could be herd immunity. You were wrong. Get over it.

@metal-brain said
Herd immunity doesn't happen when the vaccine doesn't give immunity to the virus.

Herd immunity doesn't happen when the vaccine doesn't give immunity to the virus

which I didn't deny and is completely irrelevant to anything I claimed. This is just you silly new straw man that convinces nobody here.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE PFIZER VACCINE GIVES IMMUNITY TO THE VIRUS.

But, and again contrary to your claim, there is evidence the vaccine provides immunity from COVID 19 disease.
Here are the links to that evidence yet again;

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/10/1013914/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-chart-covid-19/
"...After two weeks, hardly anyone with the vaccine was getting covid-19. But the disease kept striking those who got the placebo with clockwork regularity...."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8
"...Scientists welcome the first compelling evidence that a vaccine can prevent Covid 19 . ..."

And do you deny what the above links say?
If so, based on what evidence? So far you have shown none that contradicts what the above links say.

That means no herd immunity,

If that is true, and you haven't proven it gives no herd immunity, its irrelavant to any of my claims thus just straw man. And in your original false claim you didn't say "herd immunity" and thus didn't mean herd immunity.

Reminder
"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity." (your quote)

No mention of "herd" there!
-and your above assertion is false.

You falsely claimed there could be herd immunity.

What does that assertion mean? That I claimed its possible for there exist herd immunity? If so, prove its impossible for there to ever exist herd immunity. But if what you mean is that I claimed the vaccine would necessarily give herd immunity; Straw man, I never claimed this, and I challenge you to show where I said this...
Either way, its irrelavant to any claim I recently made here in this thread.

@humy said

Herd immunity doesn't happen when the vaccine doesn't give immunity to the virus

which I didn't deny and is completely irrelevant to anything I claimed. This is just you silly new straw man that convinces nobody here.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE PFIZER VACCINE GIVES IMMUNITY TO THE VIRUS.

But, and again contrary to your claim, there is evi ...[text shortened]... w where I said this...
Either way, its irrelavant to any claim I recently made here in this thread.

Covid 19 is not the virus. Covid 19 is the illness that results from the virus. SARS Coronavirus 2 is the virus.

The virus will still spread to infect the entire population. That mean the people who cannot take the vaccine will get it and people will still die. Once again, those are pregnant women, children under 16 and people with severe allergies. Then there are the many people who will refuse the vaccine no matter how many politicians get a shot in the arm we don't even know is the real vaccine. Obama once drank Flint Michigan water to show it was safe. I'll bet someone switched the water for him at some point.

Where is the herd immunity? There is none.

@metal-brain said
Covid 19 is not the virus.

correct, and which I agreed with and didn't deny and is completely irrelevant to anything I claimed. This is yet another of your current stupid straw mans that convinces nobody here.

Where is the herd immunity?

An irrelevant question as you clearly weren't talking about herd immunity when you falsely claimed;

"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity." (your quote)

and then I proved that above claim of yours wrong with my links.
Here is that proof yet again;


https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/10/1013914/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-chart-covid-19/
"...After two weeks, hardly anyone with the vaccine was getting covid-19. But the disease kept striking those who got the placebo with clockwork regularity...."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8
"...Scientists welcome the first compelling evidence that a vaccine can prevent Covid 19 . ..."

You make no point and showed no evidence that what my links claimed is wrong. All you have is your usual BS straw mans.