New vax science shows mandates unwise

whatbogsends said:

Why are you telling me this instead of correcting the people who continuously insist that the vaccines prevent transmission?

Click to expand...

I don't regularly peruse every vaccine thread. And I wasn't aware that correcting every incident of misinformation was my responsibility.

cow451 said:

This is your booster thread.

Click to expand...

Those of us who aren't "sheeple" know that all we need to do is read an Ivermectin thread, and supplement with reading a vitamin D thread.

I trust my AVG antivirus system.

I mean, do you even know what the long term effects of reading this thread will be? I, personally, am not going to just read any old thread if I don't know what's in it.

whatbogsends said:

Again and again, i've been told that these vaccines significantly limit infection, and that the unvaccinated are the ones who are spreading the disease. The evidence doesn't bear out those claims nor conclusion.

Click to expand...

You don't think that reducing the amount of time someone is infectious is an important factor?

If a vaccinated person clears the virus after 5 days and an unvaccinated person keeps carrying it around for 10 days, the people who would be exposed to the former on days 6-10 are direct beneficiaries.


I understand the objection to some of the mandates. There are countervailing interests at play here, and firing people (in the midst of a fragile supply chain) is short sighted...I would agree with that.

Outside of a hospital environment (I'm in favor of vaccine mandates in that environment), I would suggest that people trust they protection they've got and not worry so much about it.

I needle a lot of the anti-vaccine folks on here, but I give it to the other side too.

Per this thread a started a few months ago:
NY Times vs. Cruz: vastly different responses to the Covid unemployment benefits ending

There's no reason why a vaccinated person in their 20's and 30's (or even 40's or 50's for that matter) still needs to be clamoring for shutdowns and financial assistance and sweeping measures in the name of "being afraid of the virus".

If someone's unvaccinated, they've made their choice (and they're not all that worried about it anyway...whatever happens to them is on them), and for those of us who are vaccinated, there's nothing to suggest that we're at any substantial risk of an unvaccinated co-worker putting us in an early grave. IE: no reason to support our companies firing an unvaccinated co-worker.

ThatRobGuy said:

Those of us who aren't "sheeple" know that all we need to do is read an Ivermectin thread, and supplement with reading a vitamin D thread.

I trust my AVG antivirus system.

I mean, do you even know what the long term effects of reading this thread will be? I, personally, am not going to just read any old thread if I don't know what's in it.

Click to expand...

What part of the vaccine thread are you allergic to? Thousands of threads have been safely administered with only .1% adverse reactions. Many reports have been found to be unproven.

whatbogsends said:

We should absolutely have social measures in place to limit spread.

Not all protective measures are lockdowns.

I mask, social distance, and don't convene in indoor public spaces, and have no plans on changing that.

Click to expand...

I see you on that and raise you

I mask, social distance, don't convene in indoor public spaces, got double vaccinated, promote vaccinations online, promote mask wearing online, promote trust in public figures who are promoting mask wearing and vaccinations, and seek to counter mis-information spread by people who want people not to mask up, to not take vaccines and want to discredit authority figures that are trying to save lives.

whatbogsends said:

Everyone wants them to improve, but only some people want to mandate a vaccine which doesn't significantly limit the spread of the virus.

Click to expand...

I imagine the people in favor of vaccine mandates are talking about actual covid vaccines, not the ones imagined by anti-vaxx propaganda.

The study referenced did so. That you are trying to ignore what has been posted and focus on semantics is entirely unsurprising.

Click to expand...

Your attempt to divert the discussion to me (yet again) rather than answer a simple question speaks volumes.

The number one killer of LEOs since the beginning of the pandemic isn’t bullets but COVID-19.

Perhaps we should stop polio vaccines. That worked so well in countries that did that….NOT.

whatbogsends said:

The groundbreaking findings in Lancet show that fully vaccinated people who came down with COVID infected others in their household at the same rate (about 25%) as unvaccinated people did (about 23%). The vaccinated had just as much viral load in their upper respiratory tract, making them just as contagious.

Click to expand...

It is important in understanding this result to pay attention to the details. The finding was that people who became infected with covid-19 were equally contagious, regardless of whether they were vaccinated. The starting condition is that the person first become infected. However, vaccines do lower the risk of becoming infected in the first place, which means those who are vaccinated are much less likely to become contagious. Therefore vaccines do mitigate the risk of community spread and are worthwhile for the goal of reducing community spread.

cow451 said:

What part of the vaccine thread are you allergic to? Thousands of threads have been safely administered with only .1% adverse reactions. Many reports have been found to be unproven.

Click to expand...

I know of two people on Facebook who said their kid got autism after reading this thread!!!

I did my own research, and the CFTAERS (Christian Forums Thread Adverse Event Reporting System) database shows thousands of ill effects!

ThatRobGuy said:

I know of two people on Facebook who said their kid got autism after reading this thread!!!

I did my own research, and the CFTAERS (Christian Forums Thread Adverse Event Reporting System) database shows thousands of ill effects!

Click to expand...

Tell me about it. I've been quarantined several times this year. Vaccine threads are dangerous.

LeafByNiggle said:

It is important in understanding this result to pay attention to the details. The finding was that people who became infected with covid-19 were equally contagious, regardless of whether they were vaccinated. The starting condition is that the person first become infected. However, vaccines do lower the risk of becoming infected in the first place, which means those who are vaccinated are much less likely to become contagious. Therefore vaccines do mitigate the risk of community spread and are worthwhile for the goal of reducing community spread.

Click to expand...

Yep. Imagine a study which said that people who drive with their eyes closed and crash have injuries at similar rates to drivers who look where they are going but get in accidents. I mean, that's interesting, one might expect the eyes closed drivers to have more serious accidents, but perhaps there's a surprising reason why they don't. But in any case, that doesn't say anything about "mandates" about using one's eyes when driving.

Same thing here.

whatbogsends said:

Which part of "the study referenced did so" confused you? Your non-question had been answered before it had been asked, so yes, i criticized you for asking it disingenuously.

Click to expand...

I still don't see you presenting a number as an answer to my question. Vague hand-waving towards a paper and blaming me for asking the question isn't changing that situation. Can you not quantify how ineffective you think vaccines are?

whatbogsends said:

It was not only in the study referenced in the OP, but specifically presented in the OP. If you can't be bothered to read what i post before posting your condescending remarks, there's no reason i should take the time to respond to your posts.

From the OP:

To address the primary study outcome to establish the secondary attack rates (SARs) in household contacts, the vaccination statuses for 232 contacts exposed to 162 epidemiologically linked delta-variant-infected index cases were analysed. The SARs in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% in vaccinated and 38% in unvaccinated contacts. These results underpin the key message that vaccinated contacts are better protected than the unvaccinated. All breakthrough infections were mild, and no hospitalisations and deaths were observed. But these results also highlight that breakthrough infections continue to occur in the vaccinated, with an attack rate of 25%. Time since vaccination in fully vaccination contacts was longer for those infected than those uninfected, suggesting that waning of protection might have occurred over time, although teasing out general waning versus reduced vaccine effectiveness due to delta is challenging owing to so many confounding factors.
SAR among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases (25%; 95% CI 15–35) was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (23%; 15–31). Obviously, infection might also have occurred beyond the household level with unknown exposure in the community. Indeed, genomic and virological analysis confirmed only three index-contact pairs. Owing to the small sample size, the authors were not able to establish the vaccine effectiveness against asymptomatic infections versus symptomatic infections. This limitation together with the unconfirmed source of transmission in many of these index-contact pairs, suggests that the low SAR reported here should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the findings raise concern that the effect of vaccination on reducing transmission might be lower for the delta variant compared with the variants that circulated in the UK before the emergence of delta.

Click to expand...

Yes, I read that already. What I don't get is why are you quoting a paper which says that "the key message that vaccinated contacts are better protected than the unvaccinated" to somehow support your idea that "current vaccines do little to impact the spread of covid", much less which number from this paper you think quantifies "little" in a useful way.

I mean, if you think you understand the data better than the people quoted who do this for a living, that's one thing - give us the numbers you think show that "current vaccines do little to impact the spread of covid". But I don't get quoting a paper which specifically says that vaccines do help protect people in your quest to convince people of the opposite.

And not to beat a dead horse, but even if the paper you want us to believe didn't outright say that you're wrong, you still haven't attempted to put a number to how "little" you believe vaccines do to prevent the spread of covid. I'm starting to wonder if that's the point.

Tanj said:

Repeating what @cow451 pointed out, from the article you posted:

"Until we have such vaccines, public health and social measures will still need to be tailored towards mitigating community and household transmission in order to keep the pandemic at bay."

Nice to see you supporting lockdowns and mandatory isolations WBS.

Click to expand...

Actually, rational people stay home when it makes sense. They don't need top down micromanagement by government.

dzheremi said:

I wish we could mandate no more vaccine threads here on CF. That won't stop the virus, either, but it might stop the mind virus of insane anti-vax conspiracy nonsense and/or "mah riiiiights!" hysterics which has infected a significant portion of this formerly edifying website.

Don't want to get vaccinated? Fine. Get covid and roll the dice. But stop glomming on to stuff that you don't understand to push a narrative that is doing nothing but prolonging everyone's misery.

Click to expand...

Likewise