|
|
|
|
|
|
by thu2111
1820 days ago
|
|
|
But my point is this: your argument is that vaccines work to stop transmission with 100% reliability but not infection. You aren't stating that explicitly but it's the only belief that is consistent with what you're proposing. 1. If vaccines stop infection, then you don't need to care if other people are sick or not. 2. Therefore you argue that because they might not be 100% effective at that, everyone should act as if they aren't effective at all, and ban unvaccinated people from things. 3. But what if the vaccine isn't 100% effective at blocking transmission either? Then a vaccinated person might be both sick and infectious. In which case as they'd be dangerous to other vaccinated people, they should also be banned, which means everyone is banned. Therefore by contradiction you must believe it's possible that they block transmission 100% but not infection. This makes no biological sense and isn't supported by robust science. In fact even asymptomatic transmission as a concept isn't supported by robust science - actual contact tracing attempts to find this keep drawing blanks. The belief it must be common comes from attempts to make models work mathematically, but those models are so filled with basic errors nothing about them is useful. |
|
|
No, this is not my argument. There is growing evidence that transmission rates are drastically reduced among vaccinated people, but only by ~40-60% [0].
> 1. If vaccines stop infection, then you don't need to care if other people are sick or not.
We already established that while vaccines are very effective at stopping infection, they are not 100% effective.
> 2. Therefore you argue that because they might not be 100% effective at that, everyone should act as if they aren't effective at all, and ban unvaccinated people from things.
No, that is not my argument. My argument is that given current vaccination rates (~20% globally, ~45% in the US), and the significantly higher chance of transmission from un-vaccinated people, there is a meaningful chance that there is still risk despite 95% infection coverage. For sake of argument, if vaccination rates were meaningfully higher, I think this policy would be less necessary.
> 3. But what if the vaccine isn't 100% effective at blocking transmission either? Then a vaccinated person might be both sick and infectious. In which case as they'd be dangerous to other vaccinated people, they should also be banned, which means everyone is banned.
Again no, not my argument. It's not 100% effective at blocking transmission, but the chance of transmission is significantly lower for vaccinated individuals.
> Therefore by contradiction you must believe it's possible that they block transmission 100% but not infection.
No. For some reason, you keep taking my statements about percentages and twisting them into something unrelated.
In summary: there are a number of variables: current case rate, current vaccination rate/percentage, transmission rate for unvaccinated people, transmission rate for vaccinated people, infection rate for unvaccinated people and infection rate for vaccinated people.
There is no absolutely correct or incorrect answer, only risk-based decisions like: "for now, we require all attendees to be vaccinated". Given the variables above, and current values in the real world, I happen to believe the restrictions are reasonable. As those variables change, so will the appropriateness of the restrictions.
If you zoom out a bit, remember that we're coming out of a period of time where no events were happening at all, and folks are cautious, and understandably so.
You don't have to agree with my conclusion, but you do have to stop assigning your own twisted interpretation of these arguments to me.
Hopefully this clarifies things for future readers, but despite the temptation to continue, this is my last reply on this thread.
- [0] https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests...