Read on Twitter
I agree. There's no question the Covid-19 vaccines will save many, many lives and are key to getting us out of the pandemic. But I think it's dangerous to speak beyond the data and tell the public that *we know* that the vaccine does something that it hasn't yet been shown to do. https://twitter.com/stgoldst/status/1351211410781589509
He (and I) are referring in part to this @nytimes piece out today: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/18/briefing/donald-trump-pardon-phil-spector-coronavirus-deaths.html
Science sometimes surprises us. And I believe being honest with the public about what we know and don't know is the best way to earn and keep their trust. Sure, we can speculate, but we need to be clear we're speculating.
I wrote about this tension in vaccine science, and about the importance of transparency, several years ago for @nytimes. It feels relevant right now. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/opinion/sunday/anti-vaccine-activists-have-taken-vaccine-science-hostage.html?searchResultPosition=1
Also, re: the claim that no widely used vaccines prevent disease without also preventing infection: IPV is a big exception. https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/pages/news/news/2016/04/poliomyelitis-polio-and-the-vaccines-used-to-eradicate-it-questions-and-answers#whyipv
Some animal vaccines work this way, too, including the widely used vaccine for Marek's disease in chickens. I wrote about that vaccine a few years ago, and about other public health implications of the use of these kinds of "leaky" vaccines: http://quantamagazine.org/how-vaccines-can-drive-pathogens-to-evolve-20180510/
