Quote:
Originally Posted by carlsonjok
I believe the point he is making (albeit badly) is that vaccines aren't, in a sense, a prophylactic. Vaccines work by training the immune system to develop an antibody response to the disease. This response may keep the person from developing the disease altogether, which obviously leads to the difference in infection rates you noted in your previous post.
However, while the immune response may not prevent some from the developing the disease anyways, it does help mitigate the severity (and mortality) of the disease. And there is significant information available from healthcare organizations to back this up. It is this latter case that folks who don't understand the science throw up as some sort of argument that vaccines don't work. They start with a nominally true statement and run with it to whatever their predetermined conclusion is.
|
I'm not sure I get your point. In his post, he didn't start with "a nominally true statement." He started with a demonstrably false statement/claim (I agree with you that he does claim that the vaccine isn't 100% effective). I disproved that claim with the data Irv was so generous to provide. And even though I'm not a doctor and I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn Express in a long while, I do know the purpose of vaccines, generally how they work, and the fact that no one in their right mind claims they are 100% effective. So again, I'm not sure what your point is.
Maybe I didn't get your point because I was too busy patting myself on the back for ignoring the idiocy that follows from his post. For instance, do you think he wears seatbelts? After all, seatbelts don't prevent injury or death in 100% of the people who wear them, so why wear them according to his "logic"?