It's called fallacy of composition[0] when they cherry pick the cases where it's less effective to infer it's not effective as a whole, and fallacy of division[1] when trying to do reductio ad absurdum by claiming that, if it's effective as a whole, it should also be so under all underlying metrics.
Two sides of the same nonsense coin.
"It doesn't fully stop spread, so it doesn't work as a whole". Thanks for giving another example for my comment.
No, they don't. [0][1]
From [1]
> Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles; one dose is about 93% effective.
Obviously those 3% and 7% do spread, even though the symptoms are milder. For the 97 and 93% ones there's indeed very limited (if any) shedding [3].
Now that's holding different bars, because asymptomatic measles infections are less contagious by themselves, regardless of vaccination status, unlike COVID-19 which is still relatively contagious while asymptomatic. So you're attributing a positive point of measles infections as a fault of the COVID-19 vaccines, which is, as you might see, a pretty misinformed take.
Also, sterilizing immunity as you seem to understand doesn't really exist, in case that's the misconception you have [2]. In the end it's all about viral load, route of exposure, and level and type of immunity. A mucosal vaccine would behave more in the way your expecting intramuscular ones to work[4].
[0] https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/67/9/1315/5034094?login...
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz...
[3] https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S165/8...
The fact is that the efficiency of the vaccine is being understood as we go. We started with the initial dose and are now considering second and third boosters because the efficiency diminished faster than expected
That’s beside the point of the WaPo article. YouTube is making the decision to remove any content that goes against vaccines, based in truth or not.
Is this the kind of information you're worried will be deleted, that is, gross misunderstandings of reality in the best case, outright lies to generate engagement in the worst?
That is the case for the COVID19 vaccines. Visualization here[1]. The domain might be banned, but the code, snapshots, and the chart output here[2].
At least compare with a previous wave to see if there's a change according to vaccination rates (spoiler: there is), because as it is it's a worthless, albeit pretty, representation of data.
For example, the CDC overwrites the previous information with every week's update. That is why the repo exists. To preserve any time series information in one place with a verifiable way to extract it out of ever-changing HTML pages and put it in a table.
In theory, the CDC ought to be able to put the relevant information in a table. At a minimum, we'd need `date`, `locality`, age distributions of fully, partially, and never vaccinated populations, age distribution of people who are hospitalized due to COVID19, and age distribution of people who died from COVID19.
Ideally, we'd have a data set consisting of one row per hospitalization/death with relevant dimensions such as age, sex, first shot date, second shot date, type of vaccine, locality, other conditions etc.
But, we do not. Because the bureaucracy has not deemed it appropriate to collect or share that information.
Instead, we need to rely on free form HTML pages where the provenance of the data are not clear.
What I have done is made visible one bit of information that would otherwise not be available: The normalized rate of fully vaccinated people being hospitalized or dying from the disease against which they are fully vaccinated has been steadily increasing over time.
The main reason is that the vaccines are not as effective as the 95% number that has been flouted time and again. Of course, it takes time for a person to be exposed, diagnosed, hospitalized, and maybe die, so the revelation has been happening over time instead of instantaneously.
> because as it is it's a worthless, albeit pretty, representation of data.
If I hadn't taken the snapshots and extracted the information from those pages, there would be no time series of breakthrough hospitalization and death rates anywhere. It seems to me it is worth something to save that information.
Plus, Biden told us the rate of hospitalization from COVID19 among the fully vaccinated was 1/160,000. The real number is 10 times that[1]. Isn't it worth something to know this?