a Christian only topic of vaccine mandates

[probinson]

They do prevent infection. I'm not sure where you get the idea that they don't.

Did you read the article? 36% of a 99% vaccinated football team got infected.

Now I suppose you can pretend that the 64% of people that didn't get infected were protected by the vaccine. So are you claiming a 64% efficacy in infection prevention? Not quite the 90%+ echoed by health "experts" and media. Also not exactly what one would describe as "rare".

Also, how many unvaccinated people come in contact with the virus and don't get infected? I suspect that data would be hard to come by. Anecdotally speaking, my mother took care of my sick father for 2 weeks when he got COVID. This was last year before vaccines. And she never got sick, despite living in the same house, sleeping in the same bed, and being in constant close contact with him. And she never got sick. By today's standards if she was vaccinated, they would say that it was because of the vaccine that she didn't get infected. Except she wasn't vaccinated, and she still didn't get infected anyway despite being continually exposed to the virus for weeks on end.

Much like Barbarians reference to seatbelts, they don't have to be 100% effective to prevent infection.

If you are vaccinated and you contract COVID, the vaccine failed to protect you. It really is that simple.

 

[Hammster]

What about young children, people with health conditions that prevent them from being vaccinated, and the occasional breakthrough infection? As you already know, it's perfectly legal to require immunizations, according to the Supreme Court over a hundred years back.

Further, one of the biggest problems for public health is the unvaccinated filling up ICUs, preventing others who need them from getting adequate care.

Unvaccinated Americans are ‘irresponsibly filling up our ERs and ICUs
An area of particular concern is the South, where vaccine hesitancy is high. Low vaccination rates in the region have helped fuel the rapid spread of the Delta variant, causing a surge in cases and pushing hospitals to capacity. Several hospital systems throughout the South have been forced to move patients to makeshift ICU areas or construct emergency field hospitals as they struggle to accommodate a large number of patients.
Unvaccinated Americans are ‘irresponsibly filling up our ERs and ICUs’: doctor

I guess we could try biblical principles.

 

[probinson]

I've tended to care less and less about anti vaxxers in recent times.

Anti-vaxxers is an inaccurate pejorative.

9/10 deaths are in the unvaxxed

Which includes partially vaccinated and those who have had both shots but it hasn't been 14 days since their last shot. Just think about that for a minute. Someone who has had both doses of their vaccine but has had only 13 days pass since their second dose is "unvaccinated" according to US data. Talk about stacking the deck.

these days and with 1000-2000 people dying per day over the past few months in the US, it's 900/1000 or 1800/2000 anti-vaxxers that are dying on a daily basis.

Nope. There are plenty of people with single doses of their vaccine and those who have had both doses but haven't had 14 days pass in those numbers also. I doubt anyone would call them "anti-vaxxers".

How or why people want to be stubborn during this time of a mass dying of the unvaccinated is beyond me.

You seem to think that the only reason that people don't want to be vaccinated is because they're "stubborn", but this again is an inaccurate pejorative.

There are countless people who have had COVID and recovered. These people possess natural immunity, a concept that was not at all controversial until this pandemic. That's why many countries will readily accept prior infection as proof of immunity. But not the US. They commission the CDC to pull together shoddy, politically-driven "studies" to pretend natural immunity isn't protective.

Dishonesty from public health "experts" is the primary reason people are not getting vaccinated.

 

[Job 33:6]

Did you read the article? 36% of a 99% vaccinated football team got infected.

Now I suppose you can pretend that the 64% of people that didn't get infected were protected by the vaccine. So are you claiming a 64% efficacy in infection prevention? Not quite the 90%+ echoed by health "experts" and media. Also not exactly what one would describe as "rare".

Also, how many unvaccinated people come in contact with the virus and don't get infected? I suspect that data would be hard to come by. Anecdotally speaking, my mother took care of my sick father for 2 weeks when he got COVID. This was last year before vaccines. And she never got sick, despite living in the same house, sleeping in the same bed, and being in constant close contact with him. And she never got sick. By today's standards if she was vaccinated, they would say that it was because of the vaccine that she didn't get infected. Except she wasn't vaccinated, and she still didn't get infected anyway despite being continually exposed to the virus for weeks on end.



If you are vaccinated and you contract COVID, the vaccine failed to protect you. It really is that simple.

Actually, with Delta variant, depending on the vaccine taken and the immune system of the individual, few people would argue for a 90% efficacy against Delta without any caveats. But of course further you can't base vaccine efficacy off of what I've seen you've post, one news article. You have to look at large bodies of data.

You're arguing as if because some breakthrough infections happen, somehow this means that vaccination doesn't prevent infection. It may be true for a particular individual, but in a large scope of things over large numbers, it is absolutely true and has been confirmed time and time again through dozens of studies.

 

[Job 33:6]

Anti-vaxxers is an inaccurate pejorative.



Which includes partially vaccinated and those who have had both shots but it hasn't been 14 days since their last shot. Just think about that for a minute. Someone who has had both doses of their vaccine but has had only 13 days pass since their second dose is "unvaccinated" according to US data. Talk about stacking the deck.



Nope. There are plenty of people with single doses of their vaccine and those who have had both doses but haven't had 14 days pass in those numbers also. I doubt anyone would call them "anti-vaxxers".



You seem to think that the only reason that people don't want to be vaccinated is because they're "stubborn", but this again is an inaccurate pejorative.

There are countless people who have had COVID and recovered. These people possess natural immunity, a concept that was not at all controversial until this pandemic. That's why many countries will readily accept prior infection as proof of immunity. But not the US. They commission the CDC to pull together shoddy, politically-driven "studies" to pretend natural immunity isn't protective.

Dishonesty from public health "experts" is the primary reason people are not getting vaccinated.

The study I posted talks about single-dosed individuals as well.

The truth is that unvaccinated people are dying in vast numbers, and there's really no question in this and no debating it, It's just the way it is.

We have dozens of studies now demonstrating efficacy of vaccines at preventing infection and preventing the spread of the virus and of course preventing hospitalizations and deaths, that people still can't seem to figure that out these days either, I call that being stubborn. The unvaccinated are dying in mass numbers, and they still just can't accept it.

 

[probinson]

You're arguing as if because some breakthrough infections happen,

Some? 36% of a group of people is a bit more than "some".

somehow this means that vaccination doesn't prevent infection. It may be true for a particular individual, but in a large scope of things over large numbers, it is absolutely true and has been confirmed time and time again through dozens of studies.

It really hasn't. The US isn't even interested in collecting this data. That's why we don't test for breakthrough infections. That's why we don't have a "partially vaccinated" category. It's just "vaxxed or unvaxxed".

With Pfizer, there are 35 days during your vaccine regimen that you are considered "unvaxxed".
With Moderna, there are 42 days during your vaccine regimen that you are considered "unvaxxed".
With J&J, there are 14 days where you are considered "unvaxxed".

 

[Job 33:6]

Some? 36% of a group of people is a bit more than "some".



It really hasn't. The US isn't even interested in collecting this data. That's why we don't test for breakthrough infections. That's why we don't have a "partially vaccinated" category. It's just "vaxxed or unvaxxed".

With Pfizer, there are 35 days during your vaccine regimen that you are considered "unvaxxed".
With Moderna, there are 42 days during your vaccine regimen that you are considered "unvaxxed".
With J&J, there are 14 days where you are considered "unvaxxed".

Even if it were 36% as a rate of breakthrough infections, that would still be 64% efficacy. That would be 64% of people who wouldn't get the virus.

You have to look at large numbers, you can't just look at one news article for one group of people and one place, you have to look at large bodies of data.

Like I said, just because some people have breakthrough infections doesn't mean vaccination isn't working. It's really that simple. And you don't have to take my word for it just look at large bodies of data. And just as noted above the unvaccinated are getting crushed right now.

 

[Job 33:6]

Some? 36% of a group of people is a bit more than "some".



It really hasn't. The US isn't even interested in collecting this data. That's why we don't test for breakthrough infections. That's why we don't have a "partially vaccinated" category. It's just "vaxxed or unvaxxed".

With Pfizer, there are 35 days during your vaccine regimen that you are considered "unvaxxed".
With Moderna, there are 42 days during your vaccine regimen that you are considered "unvaxxed".
With J&J, there are 14 days where you are considered "unvaxxed".

What do you mean we don't have data on single dose individuals?

The study I posted twice now involves single dose individuals.

The vaccines have been out since last January, so whether someone needs another couple weeks after their second shot or not is irrelevant to the data.

There's absolutely no question that the unvaccinated are being completely crushed by the virus in mass numbers. And there's just no way around this. It's just a fact.

9/10 deaths these days have not had a single shot.

And if you don't believe it, maybe it doesn't even matter, maybe we should let another 30 days pass where 9 out of 10 deaths are people without a single shot and we can return again to have the same discussion. Just so you can deny this reality again.

 

[probinson]

We have dozens of studies now demonstrating efficacy of vaccines at preventing infection and preventing the spread of the virus and of course preventing hospitalizations and deaths, that people still can't seem to figure that out these days either, I call that being stubborn. The unvaccinated are dying in mass numbers, and they still just can't accept it.

You're conflating three things here.

I've already said multiple times in this thread that vaccines are effective at preventing hospitalizations and deaths. I don't dispute that one bit.

But the vaccines are far less effective (and their protective effects begin waning almost instantly) in preventing infection or transmission. But don't take my word for it. CDC Director Dr. Walensky said, "They (the vaccines) continue to work well with 'Delta' with regard to severe illness and death, but what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission."

The vaccines have been shown to have very poor efficacy at preventing infection, and they do not stop transmission. The CDC even acknowledges this. So do you, really, when you admit people who are vaccinated are still getting infected but not having severe illness or death.

I'm not sure why you're opposed to the statement that vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission when even the CDC admits that freely.

 

[Job 33:6]

You're conflating three things here.

I've already said multiple times in this thread that vaccines are effective at preventing hospitalizations and deaths. I don't dispute that one bit.

But the vaccines are far less effective (and their protective effects begin waning almost instantly) in preventing infection or transmission. But don't take my word for it. CDC Director Dr. Walensky said, "They (the vaccines) continue to work well with 'Delta' with regard to severe illness and death, but what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission."

The vaccines have been shown to have very poor efficacy at preventing infection, and they do not stop transmission. The CDC even acknowledges this. So do you, really, when you admit people who are vaccinated are still getting infected but not having severe illness or death.

I'm not sure why you're opposed to the statement that vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission when even the CDC admits that freely.

There's no conflation here, you're just unfamiliar with the data.

The vaccines prevent infection and transmission, and they prevent hospitalization and death and all of this is known and is factual.

And what you're saying doesn't make any sense, you're saying that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection but then somehow they're also not preventing transmission? Tell me how is it that someone who doesn't get infected can still pass on the virus?

If someone doesn't get infected because of vaccination, they therefore cannot transmit virus. Which means that if vaccination prevents infection, it therefore prevents transmission as well.

Not only that but studies have demonstrated that those who are vaccinated also kill the virus faster meaning that they are contagious for a briefer period of time which also lessens the spread of the virus.

And nothing is being conflated here, it's just a matter of if you're familiar with the data or if you're not.

And even if the vaccines were 50% efficacious against Delta in some particular area or place of time, that's still 50% of people who won't get infected and 50% of people who won't spread the virus. And 50% of people who will kill the virus faster. This isn't complicated.

 

[probinson]

Even if it were 36% as a rate of breakthrough infections, that would still be 64% efficacy. That would be 64% of people who wouldn't get the virus.

But some of those 64% likely wouldn't have gotten infected anyway. You're presuming that if someone is unvaccinated and is exposed to COVID, there is a 100% certainty they will be infected. Of course we know that's absolutely not true, so you can't claim a 64% efficacy from vaccines simply because they did not get infected.

You have to look at large numbers, you can't just look at one news article for one group of people and one place, you have to look at large bodies of data

Agreed.

And if you look at highly vaccinated countries and states, they are not being spared surges in infections. The large bodies of data are illustrating that high rates of vaccination does not equate to low levels of infection or transmission.

Let's look again at Vermont, with one of the highest vaccination rates in the country;

Case numbers are up at record levels, despite high vaccination rates. This is but one example. You can look all over the world and see this same result.

Like I said, just because some people have breakthrough infections doesn't mean vaccination isn't working.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "working". If you mean they prevent severe illness and death, then I agree. They are "working" to do that. But if you mean they prevent infection and transmission, nope, they aren't "working" in that regard at all.

 

[Job 33:6]

But some of those 64% likely wouldn't have gotten infected anyway. You're presuming that if someone is unvaccinated and is exposed to COVID, there is a 100% certainty they will be infected. Of course we know that's absolutely not true, so you can't claim a 64% efficacy from vaccines simply because they did not get infected.



Agreed.

And if you look at highly vaccinated countries and states, they are not being spared surges in infections. The large bodies of data are illustrating that high rates of vaccination does not equate to low levels of infection or transmission.

Let's look again at Vermont, with one of the highest vaccination rates in the country;

View attachment 308454

Case numbers are up at record levels, despite high vaccination rates. This is but one example. You can look all over the world and see this same result.


I suppose that depends on what you mean by "working". If you mean they prevent severe illness and death, then I agree. They are "working" to do that. But if you mean they prevent infection and transmission, nope, they aren't "working" in that regard at all.

And that's why you have to look at the studies and you can't just make up whatever you want based off of your imagination.

I never said that I assumed that 100% of people would otherwise get infected if they weren't vaccinated.

And as I mentioned before, just because there are breakthrough infections does it mean that the vaccines are not efficacious.

 

[Job 33:6]

Barbarian mentioned this multiple times now and this is absolutely correct.

People who are vaccinated are significantly less likely to contract the virus and to spread the virus. Breakthrough infections of course still occur, but that doesn't mean that the vaccines are not effective at preventing infection in a percentage of a population of people.

And it doesn't even matter if the vaccines are 80% effective or 60% effective, preventing infections in a body of a population, even if it were just 50% of the time, means that that's 50% of people who won't run the risk of hospitalization and death. That's 50% of people who won't spread the virus on, that's 50% of people who will kill the virus faster.

Even if the vaccines are just 50%, effective, that's still a huge deal when you're talking about 330 million American citizens.

And I'm not going to conflate this and I'll specifically distinguish between this next idea and my prior, when it comes to deaths, 9 out of 10 people who are dying these days have not had a single shot. Every day a thousand Americans are dying, it's going up to two and 3,000 and it's going down below a thousand as well, But these days 1,000 people 1,000 Americans die every single day, and 9 out of 10 of them have not had a single shot.

If that isn't enough to tell you to get a shot, then I just don't know what is.

 

[probinson]

There's no conflation here,

Yeah, there is.

you're just unfamiliar with the data.

No, I'm not.

The vaccines prevent infection and transmission, and they prevent hospitalization and death and all of this is known and is factual.

"They (the vaccines) continue to work well with 'Delta' with regard to severe illness and death, but what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission."

- CDC Director, Dr. Walensky​

And what you're saying doesn't make any sense, you're saying that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection

No, I'm not saying that at all. Quite the opposite actually.

but then somehow they're also not preventing transmission?

Are you saying that the CDC Director, Dr. Walensky was wrong when she said, "...but what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission..."?

If someone doesn't get infected because of vaccination, they therefore cannot transmit virus.

Or they are asymptomatic, and are transmitting the virus unbeknownst to them, since the vaccination does not prevent infection.

Not only that but studies have demonstrated that those who are vaccinated also kill the virus faster meaning that they are contagious for a briefer period of time which also lessens the spread of the virus.

Not really. When I had COVID, I was ill and I stayed home. I kept away from people because I knew I was sick, and I stayed away from people which lessened the spread. When an asymptomatic, vaccinated person has COVID, they go about their businesses, spreading the virus everywhere they go, completely unbeknownst to them.

And nothing is being conflated here,

Sure it is. You're conflating three things;

• Efficacy of preventing infection
• Efficacy of preventing transmission
• Efficacy of preventing severe illness or disease.

I don't know why you're pretending that all 3 of those efficacy rates are the same. They're not. It appears that you are the one unfamiliar with the data.

 

[probinson]

I never said that I assumed that 100% of people would otherwise get infected if they weren't vaccinated.

Yes you did, indirectly, Your claim of a 64% vaccine efficacy in Cal's football team necessitates that those 64% of people would have been infected had they not been vaccinated. That's an assumption of a 100% infection rate if they weren't vaccinated.

And as I mentioned before, just because there are breakthrough infections does it mean that the vaccines are not efficacious.

But the efficacy of infection prevention is FAR lower than we've been sold.

 

[probinson]

People who are vaccinated are significantly less likely to contract the virus and to spread the virus.

Gaslighting;

Vaccinated just as likely to spread delta variant within household as unvaccinated: study

Just. As. Likely.

If that isn't enough to tell you to get a shot, then I just don't know what is.

I've had COVID. Many studies show that I have as good or better protection than those who are vaccinated. Why do you think I need a shot?

 

[Job 33:6]

Yeah, there is.



No, I'm not.

"They (the vaccines) continue to work well with 'Delta' with regard to severe illness and death, but what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission."

- CDC Director, Dr. Walensky​

No, I'm not saying that at all. Quite the opposite actually.


Are you saying that the CDC Director, Dr. Walensky was wrong when she said, "...but what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission..."?


Or they are asymptomatic, and are transmitting the virus unbeknownst to them, since the vaccination does not prevent infection.



Not really. When I had COVID, I was ill and I stayed home. I kept away from people because I knew I was sick, and I stayed away from people which lessened the spread. When an asymptomatic, vaccinated person has COVID, they go about their businesses, spreading the virus everywhere they go, completely unbeknownst to them.



Sure it is. You're conflating three things;

• Efficacy of preventing infection
• Efficacy of preventing transmission
• Efficacy of preventing severe illness or disease.

I don't know why you're pretending that all 3 of those efficacy rates are the same. They're not. It appears that you are the one unfamiliar with the data.

Your quotes of the CDC director are completely out of context, she was referring to breakthrough cases of infection.

Yes it's true that if you get infected, you can still transmit the virus even if you are vaccinated. Nobody has denied that.

And that's why you have blind studies that test both vaccinated and unvaccinated for the virus, and symptomatic and asymptomatic.

Like I said, you're just unfamiliar with the data. You think that maybe all these vaccinated people are walking around with a virus, but that's just not true.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Increasing population immunity via booster programmes and vaccination of teenagers will help to increase the currently limited effect of vaccination on transmission,"

From your own source. What do you think that means, "increase the limited effect on transmission". It means that vaccination has an effect on transmission that can be increased by boosters.

The study also is dealing with people who are already infected, it's not talking about people getting infected in the world, But rather is talking about people who are already infected in closed doors of a household for prolonged periods of time.

This is straight from your own study, if you happened to have read it:

"Fully vaccinated individuals with delta variant infection had a faster (posterior probability >0·84) mean rate of viral load decline (0·95 log10 copies per mL per day) than did unvaccinated individuals with pre-alpha (0·69), alpha (0·82), or delta (0·79) variant infections."

That means that they killed the virus faster and were transmitting the virus for less time.

And remember the study begins after people are already infected and in a household, it's not looking at a broad scope of the probability of getting infected in the world.

It's saying that after you are already infected, then for some period of time you have a similar contagious nature to you as an unvaccinated person, but it's saying that your probability of spreading the virus declines faster if you are vaccinated than unvaccinated, but you can still spread the virus nonetheless and the vaccines won't stop that, they won't stop you from spreading it once you already have it.

But we all already know this, the question isn't if you are contagious if you have the virus in a breakthrough case, it's a question of what the odds are that you will even get the virus to begin with.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Increasing population immunity via booster programmes and vaccination of teenagers will help to increase the currently limited effect of vaccination on transmission,"

From your own source. What do you think that means, "increase the limited effect on transmission". It means that vaccination has an effect on transmission that can be limited by boosters.

The study also is dealing with people who are already infected, it's not talking about people getting infected in the world, But rather is talking about people who are already infected in closed doors of a household for prolonged periods of time.

This is straight from your own study, if you happened to have read it:

"Fully vaccinated individuals with delta variant infection had a faster (posterior probability >0·84) mean rate of viral load decline (0·95 log10 copies per mL per day) than did unvaccinated individuals with pre-alpha (0·69), alpha (0·82), or delta (0·79) variant infections."

That means that they killed the virus faster and were transmitting the virus for less time.

And remember the study begins after people are already infected and in a household, it's not looking at a broad scope of the probability of getting infected in the world.

From your own study again:
Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings.

Did you read your own study? It says it right there in the discussion. It says it right there with the statistically significant data.

Peak viral load is not to be confused with total viral load. The study is blatantly saying that people who are already infected with a virus kill the virus faster and therefore are less likely to transmit the virus in cases where they're already infected. But in a case where people are already infected, they still have a normal probability of spreading a virus at some point in their contagiousness when they're in enclosed structures for long periods of time with unvaccinated people.

Which should be of no surprise to us because obviously if there is a person who has covid-19, they will be able to spread it. There's no reason to assume that they wouldn't be able to spread it given that they already have it which is what the study is talking about, people who already have the virus.

 

[probinson]

Your quotes of the CDC director are completely out of context,

No, it's not.

she was referring to breakthrough cases of infection.

"Breakthrough cases of infection" is just another way to say infections that the vaccine failed to prevent.

Yes it's true that if you get infected, you can still transmit the virus even if you are vaccinated. Nobody has denied that.

It's also true that large numbers of vaccinated people are getting infected.

Like I said, you're just unfamiliar with the data.

Not true.

You think that maybe all these vaccinated people are walking around with a virus, but that's just not true.

Dishonesty is one of the main reasons people are vaccine hesitant.

Here is the truth. If you have never had COVID, you will have far greater protection if you've been vaccinated from severe illness, hospitalization or death. However being vaccinated will not prevent you from getting infected, nor will it prevent you from spreading the disease.

This aligns with your data that 9/10 people who are hospitalized and/or dying is unvaccinated*. But it is not "rare" for breakthrough infections to occur. They occur quite regularly.

* or partially vaccinated, or not 14 days past their second dose, or their vaccination status is unknown