[JamisonM]

If you haven't seen any data of reduced transmission it is because you are intentionally avoiding it.

Look ay the case numbers in the nations that are vaccinating at a high rate, if you don't know how to draw appropriate conclusions from that data then obviously you are not interested in forming an honest opinion.

The evidence is just sitting out there, everywhere, you don't even need a proper study.. although there are also many of those!

[ppf]

Reduced case numbers is not the same as reduced transmission. As the vaccines have only been tested to reduce symptoms, it would not be surprising that we are seeing fewer cases. In fact, it would be expected, as people don't generally test unless they have symptoms.

[JamisonM]

This is so hopelessly stupid I just feel sorry for you at this point.

If you think that the hospitals just magically emptied out and the virus is still circulating at the same rate as before vaccinations started in every jurisdiction that has significant vaccination rates you are hopelessly lost.

But I know you are not hopelessly lost, you are just not engaged in an honest discussion.

[ppf]

My turn to accuse you of dishonesty - intellectual, this time. All the vaccine developers have promised about the vaccines is that they will reduce symptoms, as I'm sure you are fully aware. Unless some later study is done that provides some more concrete data on exactly how the vaccine is achieving what it is, at the moment all we can say is that the benefits we see (reduced hospitalisations and deaths, as well as some amount of reduced transmission) are a secondary effect of that primary benefit.

In case you missed it - I am not denying that the vaccines have done good - I am just very carefully sticking to what the vaccine developers themselves have said about the vaccine, which does not include anything about reducing transmission.

[JamisonM]

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests...

Go ahead and wait for "absolute proof" or some other absurd standard to believe something about a novel virus to make up your mind, whatever. You concede in your comment "as well as some amount of reduced transmission", give it up already!

All along following the most obvious path that evidence has lead towards proven to be fruitful, here is another case.. in case you have missed it.

[ppf]

I concede nothing. From my original comment, "Also, I have yet to see any concrete data on how much the various vaccines reduce transmission.".

It would be nice if it does, and it is plausible that the vaccines do reduce transmission to some extent, but their primary route of action is to save lives by reducing symptoms.

Apparently demanding something better than the level of "evidence suggests" from your linked article (and even that is new news, which means we had no evidence at all until recently) makes me an idiot and worthy of derision. You are not helping the stereotype.

FWIW - how long do you call a coronavirs "novel", given it's fairly rapid mutation rate? At this point, Covid-19 is practically ancient.

And so far - your "obvious path", at least as it was implemented in the country I live in, is quite likely to cause economic and social ruin.

[JamisonM]

There has been evidence of reduced transmission for months, again you are not engaging in an honest evaluation of the evidence.

Most governments actually haven't followed the most obvious path in much of anything to do with this virus, that has been the source of most of the ruin.

Go get vaccinated.