| >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. |
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