[croon]

> For covid once infected ... and thus more likely to go about their business as usual (and thus spread the virus) than to stay home like unvaccinated.

> As a result the vaccinated people do possibly spread more infection than unvaccinated.

You are using a subset of the groups to argue around the entire groups.

If the entire (much larger) group of vaccinated got infected at a rate of unvaccinated, your argument would hold, but they don't and it doesn't.

[trhway]

>If the entire (much larger) group of vaccinated got infected at a rate of unvaccinated, your argument would hold, but they don't and it doesn't.

they do. Covid vaccine doesn't significantly decrease infection rate [1] (that, if you think a bit about how immune system works and how covid infects, in particular is why viral load is the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated). The vaccine only softens, a lot, the symptoms.

Thus widely vaccinating healthy people, we do increase threat to immunosuppressed and the likes.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/covid-vaccinat...

"The results suggest even those who are fully vaccinated have a sizeable risk of becoming infected, with analysis revealing a fully vaccinated contact has a 25% chance of catching the virus from an infected household member while an unvaccinated contact has a 38% chance of becoming infected."

[2] https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/11/02/covid-flu-vaccine-e...

"Why do some vaccines (polio, measles) prevent diseases, while others (COVID-19, flu) only reduce their severity?"

[croon]

> they do. Covid vaccine doesn't significantly decrease infection rate [1] (that, if you think a bit about how immune system works and how covid infects, in particular is why viral load is the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated). The vaccine only softens, a lot, the symptoms.

No they don't.

> "The results suggest even those who are fully vaccinated have a sizeable risk of becoming infected, with analysis revealing a fully vaccinated contact has a 25% chance of catching the virus from an infected household member while an unvaccinated contact has a 38% chance of becoming infected."

A couple of points here:

1) 25% vs 38% is an enormous difference in compounding risk of transmission across populations.

2) Accepting the premise that viral load at peak is the same, multiple studies still show that vaccinations reduce duration of shedding and transmissibility. [1]

> Thus widely vaccinating healthy people, we do increase threat to immunosuppressed and the likes.

This is simply wrong based on above in both first and second order effects. On top of that, having fewer/less severe reactions in otherwise healthy people leaves more healthcare resources for immunosuppressed.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9499220/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.10.22269010v...

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/monitoring-reports-of-the-effect...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8992250/

[trhway]

>1) 25% vs 38% is an enormous difference in compounding risk of transmission across populations.

there is no compounding in a wide spread infection like Covid where you're guaranteed to meet a carrier several times a day, and thus there is no practical difference between 25% and 38%. You'll get it either way - say you meet 10 carriers, each time probability 25% or 38% (or even if were just 5% and 10%) - the end result is indistinguishably similar. And you meet carriers every day. So if not today, then tomorrow.

>2) Accepting the premise that viral load at peak is the same, multiple studies still show that vaccinations reduce duration of shedding and transmissibility. [1]

yep. Unvaccinated is sitting at home, feeling ill, shedding, yet not transmitting. While vaccinated is out and about, no symptoms, shedding and happily transmitting to everybody around during that "reduced duration".

>On top of that, having fewer/less severe reactions in otherwise healthy people leaves more healthcare resources for immunosuppressed.

That is another propagandistic BS. I've been to ER in the summer 2020 for a non-covid related issue - it was empty.

[croon]

> there is no compounding in wide spread infection where you're guaranteed to meet a carrier several times a day, and thus there is no practical difference between 25% and 38%. You'll get it either way - say you meet 10 carriers, each time probability 25% or 38% - the end result is indistinguishably similar.

Is your argument: "I can come up with a scenario where the real-world-measured statistics are not relevant?"

> yep. Unvaccinated is sitting at home, feeling ill, shedding, yet not transmitting. While vaccinated is out and about, no symptoms, shedding and transmitting during that "reduced duration".

You're making up scenarios not reflected in real-world data.

> That is another propagandistic BS. I've been to ER in the summer 2020 for a non-covid related issue - it was empty.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.16.20248366v...

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/112217/cdc_112217_DS1.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7046a5.htm