Twitter to Penalize Users Who Claim Vaccinated People Can Spread Covid-19
mediaite.com
mediaite.com
But it's not true that people are infectious just because they've been vaccinated—a person who claims that is lying. This article seems to exploit the ambiguous wording to assert that Twitter is penalizing people for saying the true statement, when they're in fact penalizing people for saying the false statement.
Does anyone believe this(???). This is just crazy. I figured that the purpose of a quote like
> people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the virus
is to say something like,
"The virus still spreads in a vaccinated population."
"Therefore, getting vaccinated, while it helps you, doesn't help others, and doesn't help 'end the pandemic' sooner. I.e., it doesn't lead to (vaccine-based) herd immunity."
"Therefore, you have no reason to be mad at your neighbors who refuse to get vaccinated."
I don't know if all that's actually true -- I assume that vaccinated people are at least somewhat less likely to spread COVID (nothing is ever a sure thing) -- but it's at least not crazy.
Have I been too charitable?
I don't know what to think these days. Words and phrases (e.g. "herd immunity") seem to just be trigger-words. I sometimes can't even detect logical thought. So it seems entirely possible that people are spreading these even more crazy ideas.
But I'd thought the argument was for something more plausible.
They have a shorter shedding period and less area under the curve. There are reports that the peak is similar to unvac'd. Again it is case by case due to severity of an infection. A healthy unvac'd child will likely have a lower viral load than a vac'd elderly.
Now with regards to "likelihood", that will depend on the social behavior of vac'd vs unvac'd. This still is too vague as some vac'd are cautious while others are not, and vice-a-versa.
Where did you take this from?
Let me quote https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/medical-misin... directly
> False or misleading claims that people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the virus (or symptoms, or immunity) to unvaccinated people.
That pretty clearly calls that claim false and misleading.
But the way the rule is phrased, it's clear that you cannot say tht people who received the vaccine can be contagious as well. And that's clearly wrong.
It makes its way around the conspiracy/anti-vax circles - so not so surprising that you might not have heard it. To be clear: the claim is that vaccinated but uninfected people can spread COVID. That's obvious bullshit. You should certainly rule it out.
What they meant, was that they couldn't rule out that someone was making this ridiculous claim, even though they hadn't heard said claim. All three of us are agreed that the claim itself is bullshit.
The vaccines will cause you to be sick, spread the virus, or would be more harmful than getting COVID-19.
So you are claiming this poorly worded point is just a duplicate of a more directly worded point?
Wait, what? We're talking like, vaccinated people are an oppressed minority? Even in the worst red states, is this true? I have a very hard time believing it.
I thought the argument was more about vaccination not being a way to "end COVID".
(Which might be true! But even if so, like, do get vaccinated. At the very least it'll help you, it may help others indirectly by freeing up medical resources, and there's a decent possibility that it will reduce transmission (even if it doesn't eliminate it entirely).)
Is this really too complicated for people?!
I think the canary in the coalmine is that they're embedding this penalization in the TOS. "Slippery Slope" can be a logical fallacy, but establishing a precedent sure isn't. I am certain more and more 'misinformation' penalizing clauses will get added in the future.
I remember when Twitter was censoring people who said that sanitizing surfaces was pointless against halting the spread of Covid. Lo and behold, studies came out months later that confirmed what the penalized people were saying.
> I remember when Twitter was censoring people who said that sanitizing surfaces was pointless against halting the spread of Covid.
I don’t keep up with this stuff much. How were they censoring people?
Like if that’s your canary it’s been dead since the early 90’s.
Q: If a person has received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, will the vaccine protect against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination?
A: Most vaccines that protect from viral illnesses also reduce transmission of the virus that causes the disease by those who are vaccinated. While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission.
That actually appears to be "known"
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v...