Quote Originally Posted by ragingpup View Post
Wasn't meant to insult frog - just a whimsical acknowledgement of the link sharer's chosen salutation. Made me laugh.

I watched much of the link - I despair that we are highlighting Piers Morgan's ignorance in thinking that the vaccine's were able to stop transition. I mean I'm no biologist or medical guy, but it was clear to me and most people that read the basics that the vaccine was designed to reduce impact of infection, and in my opinion, evidence with my own eyes, links with care fomes and hospitals where we were struggling to keep pace with the corpses in the first year, as well as following trends of death reduction in such areas once the vaccination was rolled out makes the pros and cons of the vaccination fall in favour of the pros. It was an unprecedented situation, many decisions made quickly and errors of judgement made which I think is as to be expected from human beings who hadn't done as goodf a job on pandemic prep for a quite predictable coronavirus outbreak. I'm all for the enquiries and conclusions to come, and for public scrutiny to be tight on them, so that we can learn from it. And that includes whether due attention was paid to the vaccines rolled out, and corruption within the process. What I struggle with is pre judging and sharing of skewed information ('we were told it would stop the virus', 'it made me poorly') from people who have as little understanding of medical biology as I do.
The involvement of Piers Morgan made me laugh and feel despair at the same time. How he would be held out as the authority on anything other than populist and unscrupulous journalism is beyond me.

Repeated studies have shown that the vaccines did reduce transmission, which is unsurprising that they would inevitably reduce the viral load of those who were vaccinated. A phrase as cumbersome but nuanced as that wouldn’t really land with Morgan's audience, however.