Some may say take it to the covid board but my question/request for help I believe is caused by political semantics....

In a discussion with an acquaintance liberal PhD in Biomedical sciences (so clearly he possess qualification, possessing logic is the question) I brought up the current administration falsely claiming early on that if you got the vaccine you would not get the virus. He agreed this was incorrect but believed they should not be held accountable for the misstatement because "anyone with a working brain knows a vaccine cannot prevent you from catching a virus". I brought up a vaccine eradicated smallpox (I do know the difference in the makeup of the smallpox virus but just wanted to make the point a vaccine has prevented virus infection so it was fair for the average American to fall for the lie by the administration) but this led to the big semantics disagreement....

His response: "The smallpox vaccine and all vaccines don't prevent you from catching the virus, but they prevent you from catching the disease".

I asked if by that he meant disease as in you will catch the virus but not get sick from it, knowing that is still not true with the covid vaccines. He would not answer other than repeat "It keeps you from catching the covid19 disease but will not keep you from catching the covid 19 virus". I once again asked the same question about his meaning of this reminding him if he is meaning people will not get sick if they catch the virus that is not accurate. He once again did not answer and only laughed and said "If I didn't understand simple biology then it would not be possible for me to understand if he explained it". The discussion ended with me saying a backhanded insult is a pretty bad excuse for not being able to explain what he means and if he believes vaccinated people sick with the virus should rest easy because they only have the "virus" and not the "disease" that is the most idiotic rationale I've ever heard.

If I am missing something I'm welcome to explanation but can anyone explain this disagreement to me other than a liberal preaching from a position of academic authority to rationalize their beliefs?

Burning his house down is the only appropriate response

And the STM signal has been lit.

Quote:

---

"If I didn't understand simple biology then it would not be possible for me to understand if he explained it".

---

If that was his response then he doesn't understand it.

Actually, looking at the wording, it's almost the exact same wording that STM was using yesterday to argue against us.


Could this be a troll by yet another one of his socks?

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Quote:

---

"If I didn't understand simple biology then it would not be possible for me to understand if he explained it".

---

If that was his response then he doesn't understand it.

---

That was my belief as well and only made me realize it makes complete since now how students get indoctrinated because the level of certainty of fact he exuded while making this claim a student in his classes will easily believe BS he spews as fact. There were so many directions to prove stupidity I wanted to take if he just would explain what he meant....which is why I don't believe he would explain and as you said didn't understand what he was saying himself.

I should add I asked if it was conclusion that the vaccines were working as they said they should to which he told me the vaccines are "spectacularly successful and working exactly as they said they should"...

This feels like "a distinction without a difference" argument to me. He's trying to separate the two things when really there is no difference.

I also love how he actually made your original argument for you.

He tells you that everyone knows the vaccine doesn't prevent you from catching the virus...but then when you actually ask him to explain it he says it's too complex for him to explain it.

So if its super simple biology, then someone as smart as him should be able to boil it down to ELI5 (explain it like I'm 5) terminology.

If it's such a complex topic that he can't explain it in simple terms, then your point that the average American doesn't understand it is true.

CDUB98 said:

---

Actually, looking at the wording, it's almost the exact same wording that STM was using yesterday to argue against us.


Could this be a troll by yet another one of his socks?

---

1) I don't even know what argument your talking about yesterday.
2) I don't even know what STM means
3) Just go look at my post history and I think that should ease that concern.

The politicians and bureaucrats told us you wouldn't catch COVID if you got the vaccine. They were wrong. Now that's it's becoming obvious that they were either intentionally lying or incredibly incompetent, they are doing linguistic gymnastics to cover their mistake.


Your friend is a useful idiot. A perfect example of someone who is highly educated but not highly intelligent.

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Quote:

---

"If I didn't understand simple biology then it would not be possible for me to understand if he explained it".

---

If that was his response then he doesn't understand it.

---

Curious what your friend actually does professionally. I have friends that do this kind of thing and I'm not sure that a single one has actually read primary literature since they found a non-scientist job, not to mention they were all pretty ****ty grad students too. If your friend is actually worth a ****, it shouldn't be difficult to explain things, especially one-on-one.

Short answer, viral infection and disease manifestation are separate processes. You have to have a virus inside your body and it has to replicate for your immune system to work. That's 1 process (infection and replication). Your body has to respond to the virus before you have symptoms or severe disease. That's a different process, in fact depending th on the virus and the symptoms it might be lots of different processes. PCR tests are sensitive enough that they could, depending on the individual, detect presence at process 1 before process 2 is noticed. In the past, with less precise tools, it may have been much harder to separate the processes (ie, no great way to know you are infected without symptoms being present).

The comparison to polio and smallpox will always be a strawman that leads nowhere to anger and frustration, especially when two people are dug in. The details and mechanisms of the processes are different. It would be like trying to say something definitive about how an electric vehicle works because my lawnmower has a spark plug.

To some people this is a religion (Covid or the mask or the shot or a combination). You will never be able to have a logical discussion about it because even if you found a counterpoint, they'd make something up or get angry.

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Quote:

---

"If I didn't understand simple biology then it would not be possible for me to understand if he explained it".

---

If that was his response then he doesn't understand it.

---

Curious what your friend actually does professionally. I have friends that do this kind of thing and I'm not sure that a single one has actually read primary literature since they found a non-scientist job, not to mention they were all pretty ****ty grad students too. If your friend is actually worth a ****, it shouldn't be difficult to explain things, especially one-on-one.

Short answer, viral infection and disease manifestation are separate processes. You have to have a virus inside your body and it has to replicate for your immune system to work. That's 1 process (infection and replication). Your body has to respond to the virus before you have symptoms or severe disease. That's a different process, in fact depending th on the virus and the symptoms it might be lots of different processes. PCR tests are sensitive enough that they could, depending on the individual, detect presence at process 1 before process 2 is noticed. In the past, with less precise tools, it may have been much harder to separate the processes (ie, no great way to know you are infected without symptoms being present).

The comparison to polio and smallpox will always be a strawman that leads nowhere to anger and frustration, especially when two people are dug in. The details and mechanisms of the processes are different. It would be like trying to say something definitive about how an electric vehicle works because my lawnmower has a spark plug.

---

He is a Biomedical Sciences Professor....So you'd think explaining should be a specialty

Gyles Marrett said:

---

His response: "The smallpox vaccine and all vaccines don't prevent you from catching the virus, but they prevent you from catching the disease".

---

I've always understood it as the vaccine does help to prevent you from catching the virus.

Quote:

---

Biomedical Sciences Professor

---

I've just found that some people do not deserve a verbal response, only a punch in the nuts.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Quote:

---

"If I didn't understand simple biology then it would not be possible for me to understand if he explained it".

---

If that was his response then he doesn't understand it.

---

Curious what your friend actually does professionally. I have friends that do this kind of thing and I'm not sure that a single one has actually read primary literature since they found a non-scientist job, not to mention they were all pretty ****ty grad students too. If your friend is actually worth a ****, it shouldn't be difficult to explain things, especially one-on-one.

Short answer, viral infection and disease manifestation are separate processes. You have to have a virus inside your body and it has to replicate for your immune system to work. That's 1 process (infection and replication). Your body has to respond to the virus before you have symptoms or severe disease. That's a different process, in fact depending th on the virus and the symptoms it might be lots of different processes. PCR tests are sensitive enough that they could, depending on the individual, detect presence at process 1 before process 2 is noticed. In the past, with less precise tools, it may have been much harder to separate the processes (ie, no great way to know you are infected without symptoms being present).

The comparison to polio and smallpox will always be a strawman that leads nowhere to anger and frustration, especially when two people are dug in. The details and mechanisms of the processes are different. It would be like trying to say something definitive about how an electric vehicle works because my lawnmower has a spark plug.

---

He is a Biomedical Sciences Professor....So you'd think explaining should be a specialty

---

You'd think, but you'd probably also need to not have much experience with professors. I tend to hold them in some of the lowest regard until proven otherwise by the individual.

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Quote:

---

...

---

...

---

...

The comparison to polio and smallpox will always be a strawman that leads nowhere to anger and frustration, especially when two people are dug in. The details and mechanisms of the processes are different. It would be like trying to say something definitive about how an electric vehicle works because my lawnmower has a spark plug.

---

Really? I'm a simple person and I believe it works something like this:

Vaccine = people take it, people don't get sick, people can rest easy that "this thing" is "gone" from society
Covid shot = people take it, more people get sick, virus thrives and people are scratching heads in confusion.

sleepybeagle said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Quote:

---

...

---

...

---

...

The comparison to polio and smallpox will always be a strawman that leads nowhere to anger and frustration, especially when two people are dug in. The details and mechanisms of the processes are different. It would be like trying to say something definitive about how an electric vehicle works because my lawnmower has a spark plug.

---

Really? I'm a simple person and I believe it works something like this:

Vaccine = people take it, people don't get sick, people can rest easy that virus is "gone" from society
Covid shot = people take it, more people get sick, virus thrives and people are scratching heads in confusion.

---

On a molecular level, there's nothing simple about the processes. So yeah, really.

Assuming he has no appetite for proving himself wrong you will not be able to persuade him through a direct discussion.

Think of it like two opposing armies of swordsman. A discussion like this that is head on will not prove decisive unless one side is far and away superior.
For the more success you have thrusting into the middle and pushing back the opposing side the more exposed you become at the wings. This forces you to withdraw your middle back in line and you are once again back at square 1. Likewise for the other side.

If you want to persuade him you need to find a way of engaging him on a flank without him realizing the attempt of the flank. You need to find what foundational element makes him keep to his side that is potentially vulnerable. Is it trust in the majority opinion. Is it his standing amongst peers? Is it political ideology? It it a hatred of Trump?

I think I can speak to what he was saying. The point he was making is there is a distinction between a disease (sickness, syndrome, or illness) and a pathogen that causes a disease (virus, bacteria, fungi, Protozoa, etc.). Our bodies are teaming with multitudes of viruses and bacteria. Some of which can cause disease but don't normally. I want to say they comprise up to 30% of our body mass but I do not remember where I heard this.

What he is hanging the argument on is that you refer to Covid as a virus and that is technically incorrect. Many people conflate the virus (SARS-Cov2) with the concept of disease (COVID-19). Similar to the virus HIV and the disease AIDS. He should reasonably understand this common conflation and move past it but he refused since you didn't understand this concept. He claims the vaccine does not prevent you from contracting the virus. This is true. He claims that the vaccine prevents the disease. This is also true, although it's arguable to what degree and is certainly up for question considering the current variant landscape.

It sounds like he does not want to have this discussion because for many experts in the field of infectious disease studies and medicine itself, the topic of this pandemic is frustratingly complex and our knowledge base is still in flux with limited consensus on much. Not to mention the politicizing of the topic. He found an escape hatch instead of having to admit that the established scientific conclusions are not strongly substantiated.

Kceovaisnt- said:

---

I think I can speak to what he was saying. The point he was making is there is a distinction between a disease (sickness, syndrome, or illness) and a pathogen that causes a disease (virus, bacteria, fungi, Protozoa, etc.). Our bodies are teaming with multitudes of viruses and bacteria. Some of which can cause disease but don't normally. I want to say they comprise up to 30% of our body mass but I do not remember where I heard this.

What he is hanging the argument on is that you refer to Covid as a virus and that is technically incorrect. Many people conflate the virus (SARS-Cov2) with the concept of disease (COVID-19). Similar to the virus HIV and the disease AIDS. He should reasonably understand this common conflation and move past it but he refused since you didn't understand this concept. He claims the vaccine does not prevent you from contracting the virus. This is true. He claims that the vaccine prevents the disease. This is also true, although it's arguable to what degree and is certainly up for question considering the current variant landscape.

It sounds like he does not want to have this discussion because for many experts in the field of infectious disease studies and medicine itself, the topic of this pandemic is frustratingly complex and our knowledge base is still in flux with limited consensus on much. Not to mention the politicizing of the topic. He found an escape hatch instead of having to admit that the established scientific conclusions are not strongly substantiated.

---

All makes sense...

and to the bolded...I would have gladly conceded that to a point the vaccines seem to prevent disease as you described it somewhat but to different degrees depending on variants it seems.

I guess my one question would be this, At what point does "disease" begin that the average person with the virus would know? When you have symptoms do you have the disease or is it some sort of severity of the symptoms? We've heard them say the vaccines reduce the severity of the symptoms. Does that mean they have prevented the disease or no? It seemed to me he was basically saying if you aren't dying in a hospital you don't have the disease and the vaccine worked.

Insult his idols (Biden, Kamala, Fauci, Cher etc.)...show him video of their contradictions (i.e. Biden, Kamala and many other liberal leaders trying to scare people away from taking the vaccine when Trump was still president). Let him know what a corrupted politically biased scientist he is and then unfriend him permanently.

Trying to remain friends with people like this is silly. He just wants to dunk on you and make you feel silly, when he is the epitome of brainwashed sheep/disciple.

sleepybeagle said:

---

cisgenderedAggie said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Quote:

---

...

---

...

---

...

The comparison to polio and smallpox will always be a strawman that leads nowhere to anger and frustration, especially when two people are dug in. The details and mechanisms of the processes are different. It would be like trying to say something definitive about how an electric vehicle works because my lawnmower has a spark plug.

---

Really? I'm a simple person and I believe it works something like this:

Vaccine = people take it, people don't get sick, people can rest easy that "this thing" is "gone" from society
Covid shot = people take it, more people get sick, virus thrives and people are scratching heads in confusion.

---

Whooping cough. One of the most infectious diseases. Babies are most susceptible to the severe symptoms of it but everyone can still get it. Half of babies that get it end up in hospital. 1% die. Adults can get it but usually resolves on its own. Adults are primary source of passing it on to babies.

whooping cough vaccine DTaP is a 3 dose series initially. only has 70% effectiveness after 1 dose and needs 2 more doses within 6 month period for 97% effectiveness. That protection wanes and you need a booster 6 months after 3rd dose, then one 3 years after that and then one every 10 years.

Can still get whooping cough even with vaccine but with less severe symptoms

Even with vaccine you can still spread pertussis (CDC q&a link). Note these links are dated before 2020 before any definition of vaccine changed

I think whooping cough is much more similar to COVID than polio or small pox.
- death rate of targeted population
- method of transmission and infectibility.
- can still be spread even with vaccine.
- has not been eradicated
- protection via vaccine or after getting the disease wanes over time.


https://www.lung.org/blog/whooping-cough
https://www.nfid.org/infectious-diseases/pertussis-whooping-cough/
https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html

Gyles Marrett said:

---

I guess my one question would be this, At what point does "disease" begin that the average person with the virus would know? When you have symptoms do you have the disease or is it some sort of severity of the symptoms? We've heard them say the vaccines reduce the severity of the symptoms. Does that mean they have prevented the disease or no? It seemed to me he was basically saying if you aren't dying in a hospital you don't have the disease and the vaccine worked.

---

As I understand it, disease begins when an infectious agent, like a virus, causes cellular damage and the body's inflammatory response kicks in. This may happen well before you notice symptoms.

Therefore, once you have symptoms, you most definitely have the disease. This assumes that those symptoms are the result of damage from the viral infection itself. It is still possible for one to have the virus and have matching symptoms that are caused by another source such as allergens or dust. In this situation there is infection without disease despite having symptoms technically.

It is claimed that even if a vaccinated patient does contract the disease, symptom severity is reduced. Based on the above understanding, it did not prevent disease but decreased the quantity of cellular damage due to a better-suited immune response to combat the virus. So, how successful is the vaccine?

There is no well-established success criteria for any vaccine. One could argue it should be total viral suppression with zero instances of breakthrough disease. It could also be argued that it is successful if there is ANY measurable reduction in disease cases and/or severity. Some have suggested that it should be when reduces any instance of disease and the risk probability of associated side effects are less than risk probability of disease complications. So it's practically impossible to just say whether a vaccine "worked" or not.

When it comes to academics, they all have doubts because at the very depths of human knowledge, it gets really hazy. For the more simple-minded layman, things seem far more concise and they are more sure of themselves as a result. The difference in thought dynamic can make academics seen like fools when posed with what others would think are simple questions. I think this may be what your professor friend is thinking. There are still plenty of profs that I know who do not handle cognitive dissonance very well. But that is part of what drive them to pursue their respective fields of study so deeply. Because they can't stand having conflicting understandings.

Kceovaisnt- said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

I guess my one question would be this, At what point does "disease" begin that the average person with the virus would know? When you have symptoms do you have the disease or is it some sort of severity of the symptoms? We've heard them say the vaccines reduce the severity of the symptoms. Does that mean they have prevented the disease or no? It seemed to me he was basically saying if you aren't dying in a hospital you don't have the disease and the vaccine worked.

---

As I understand it, disease begins when an infectious agent, like a virus, causes cellular damage and the body's inflammatory response kicks in. This may happen well before you notice symptoms.

Therefore, once you have symptoms, you most definitely have the disease. This assumes that those symptoms are the result of damage from the viral infection itself. It is still possible for one to have the virus and have matching symptoms that are caused by another source such as allergens or dust. In this situation there is infection without disease despite having symptoms technically.

It is claimed that even if a vaccinated patient does contract the disease, symptom severity is reduced. Based on the above understanding, it did not prevent disease but decreased the quantity of cellular damage due to a better-suited immune response to combat the virus. So, how successful is the vaccine?

There is no well-established success criteria for any vaccine. One could argue it should be total viral suppression with zero instances of breakthrough disease. It could also be argued that it is successful if there is ANY measurable reduction in disease cases and/or severity. Some have suggested that it should be when reduces any instance of disease and the risk probability of associated side effects are less than risk probability of disease complications. So it's practically impossible to just say whether a vaccine "worked" or not.

When it comes to academics, they all have doubts because at the very depths of human knowledge, it gets really hazy. For the more simple-minded layman, things seem far more concise and they are more sure of themselves as a result. The difference in thought dynamic can make academics seen like fools when posed with what others would think are simple questions. I think this may be what your professor friend is thinking. There are still plenty of profs that I know who do not handle cognitive dissonance very well. But that is part of what drive them to pursue their respective fields of study so deeply. Because they can't stand having conflicting understandings.

---

All of that makes sense and I agree. I would never have the thought of requiring total viral suppression to consider a vaccine successful. I'd compare that to the nuts out there that yell "one death is too many!" at people that are mask free. That being said I wouldn't be comfortable declaring it successful or not until I saw more concrete data. With so much misinformation in the news it's hard to determine the accuracy of statements like "the majority in the hospital are unvaccinated". The concrete numbers they don't seem to want to easily share. Not to mention there's still to many other factors besides vaccination status. How many of those hospitalized unvaccinated also have underlying health conditions, are elderly, etc. The overwhelming response from above seems to be shut up and don't question what we are telling you which doesn't sit easy with me or make me believe what I'm being told.