Is this just a case of infelicitious wording? It's strictly true that "people who have received the vaccine can spread or shed the virus". People with the vaccine can be infected with COVID, and infected people can spread the virus.
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.
> it's not true that people are infectious just because they've been vaccinated
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.
> I assume that vaccinated people are at least somewhat less likely to spread COVID
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.
Agreed that the line is poorly worded, but it's aimed at the myth that if you are vaccinated, you can spread COVID just by having received the vaccine. No one is going to get punished by saying infected, vaccinated people can spread the virus. When and if Twitter actually does that, then you can start blaring the warning sirens. In the meantime, this is just clickbait.
I have yet to hear that claim, though I'd certainly not rule it out :)
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.
> I have yet to hear that claim, though I'd certainly not rule it out :)
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.
> 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.
Yes. It's public knowledge, confirmed by the CDC itself for many months now, that vaccinated people can become infected and if so, can spread the virus. So there would be no reason for Twitter to punish people for saying so, and as far as we know, they have not done so.
Yeah a key part of the quote are the words right after shed the virus that you quoted. The quote is specifically saying vaccinated to unvaccinated infections. That seems like a way to fearmonger and spread misinformation while technically possibly not being incorrect. But why say vaccinated to unvaccinated? Picking out specific subgroups when making a statement that is technically true is a classic way to get bigotry across.
> Picking out specific subgroups when making a statement that is technically true is a classic way to get bigotry across.
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).)
I was stating a wider theme of how bad faith people get things across. I did not mean to say vax people are the ones being persecuted. I was connecting bigotry with silly anti vax rhetoric. Both are toxic unhelpful things.
>"when they're in fact penalizing people for saying the false statement"
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.
Genuinely curious. Why does it matter where the rules are placed? The point is they are enforcing it, no? So if it’s in the TOS or in some FAQ or some Twitter wiki page, what difference does any of it makes? In the latter two cases, the TOS will say you have to follow the rules in those sections. Just without including the rules in the TOS
> 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?
Why is it weird? The TOS is just a document that codifies all the things that Twitter will ban you for. It’s nothing more than the corporate equivalent of a forum having a list of bannable offenses.
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.
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.