[lightsighter]

> What again is the rush to vaccinate the lowest risk age group?

Because they still contribute to chain of transmission to the most vulnerable members of society, likely in a disproportional way since younger members of society tend to socialize more. Fighting a virus is a collective action. In order to stop transmission to the vulnerable members, you need to cut edges along all paths through the graph. Furthermore, additional spread, even among healthy people with no side effects, increases the probability of mutations that lead to more fit variants capable of causing even more sickness and death.

[tinus_hn]

Vaccinated people can still get infected and transmit the virus to others, with or without mutations. The idea that vaccinated people are ‘safe to be around’ is an outdated fantasy.

[lightsighter]

I never said it stopped all transmission, but it will stop a large fraction of it. We're playing games of probability. Anybody that deals in absolutes is living in a fantasy world.

[jamps]

Latest studies don't seem to agree with your statement: "Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7

The theory of vaccinating people to protect others is taking another hit. It looks more that we should focus on proposing the vaccine to the people at risk (clearly identified, >65 years old, or multiple co-morbidity) for their own survival

[tinus_hn]

> stop transmission

> cut edges

How are these not absolutes?

[peteradio]

Do you have any studies documenting incidence of child to adult transmission?