Vaccinated are 13 times more likely to get covid than those with naturally acquired immunity

[bekkilyn]

oh! Awesome. I'm a big Bernie fan.

Yay!

No, I don't want to wear a mask in perpetuity; nobody does. But good hygiene, I do.
mRNA isn't all that foreign. I mean, the "foreign substance" is injected into your body or is absorbed through droplets in the air from someone else's mouth or nose. The difference being the injection PROTECTS me and can protect YOU if you choose to take it, and is a statistically SAFE option while the other foreign substance can make us CRAZY sick

What you say may be true, but how are you going to convince people that it is true? The current plan is to use threats, coercion, and division in order to strong-arm people into getting the vaccine, which of course (in my experience) does exactly the opposite. In fact, it tends to make people suspicious of the motive. The current tactic among the vaccinated is to use mockery, contempt, and shunning of the "filthy" unvaccinated while flaunting how "safe" they are all the way to to hospital when they end up with it too after not bothering to take even the most basic of precautions.

I SWEAR I will answer this question if you can help me out with one thing:

Can you find a vaccination OR medication of ANY KIND that has a 100% success rate?
Because you seem to be framing parts of your arguments as though anything less than 100% success rate is not worth one's time.
But that cannot be your argument because you continue to advocate for two of the most BARELY uesful practices in combatting COVID.

I think I'm just confused.

I am pretty confident that my chance of getting Polio is practically 0% (sure, there is always a chance but I've never experienced it actually happening) and most certainly less than 10%. I have never once been even remotely concerned about getting polio or passing it along to others. I got vaccinated as a child and never had to worry about it again, and I may have even very much enjoyed the vaccine because I think it may have been the one with the sugar cubes. ) This particular vaccine seems to be more like the flu shot that apparently has no end in sight, though unlike the flu shot, the livelihoods of people and their families aren't being put under duress until they comply.

I agree that for most people (with the exception of those who literally cannot get vaccinated) the vaccine is more than likely going to be the safer route than going without based on current evidence, at least for the short-term (since we don't know the long-term consequences), but at the same time I am very much against using authoritarian tactics to force a vaccine on people that cannot guarantee results (i.e. STOPPING the pandemic) and may end up in the long-term having done far more harm than good.

I am against people believing that just because something seems good to them, then it's equally good for everyone and that anyone who doesn't agree is just being selfish (or a terrorist in the case of this vaccine event.)

I am also against the hypocrisy of the vaccinated yelling about responsibility while under the false belief that because they are vaccinated, they are immune to any further responsibility when they are themselves capable of both getting and transmitting the virus and even becoming hospitalized and dying of COVID. Sure, less statistically likely, but it happens and it happens a lot.

 

[rambot]

What you say may be true, but how are you going to convince people that it is true? The current plan is to use threats, coercion, and division in order to strong-arm people into getting the vaccine, which of course (in my experience) does exactly the opposite. In fact, it tends to make people suspicious of the motive. The current tactic among the vaccinated is to use mockery, contempt, and shunning of the "filthy" unvaccinated while flaunting how "safe" they are all the way to to hospital when they end up with it too after not bothering to take even the most basic of precautions.

I appreciate thta question. Frankly, I don't think I CAN convince people that it's true.
Convincing usually allows for some measure of logic which can be concretely dismantled or new information can be accepted. The issue is that a lot of vaccine skeptics are getting information from a poisoned well. A place where outliers are considered MORE important and worthy of sharing than the trend data. How can I convince someone that in that position, I do not know.
I understand the fear of the unknown, for sure. I understand the concern about "long term impacts"...at least I understand it in terms of its logic. I mean, if you consider every other known vaccine that exists in the universe has essentially no long term impacts, the decision seems clear to me.

I've had enough people hospitalized, run right down, or die from COVID for me to skew my risk analysis.
I mean, there have been 3 deaths directly linked to the J&J vaccine.
There were 17 people struck by lightenning in the US last year.

These numbers affect how I make my decisions. I assume it is numbers that affect other people's decisions too (though that is DEFINITELY presumptuous).

I am pretty confident that my chance of getting Polio is practically 0% (sure, there is always a chance but I've never experienced it actually happening) and most certainly less than 10%. I have never once been even remotely concerned about getting polio or passing it along to others. I got vaccinated as a child and never had to worry about it again, and I may have even very much enjoyed the vaccine because I think it may have been the one with the sugar cubes. ) This particular vaccine seems to be more like the flu shot that apparently has no end in sight, though unlike the flu shot, the livelihoods of people and their families aren't being put under duress until they comply.

Ok but you don't get Polio because for the last several decades people were constantly getting vaccinated. The chances of you being exposed to it have been 0 (the US hasn't had a case since 1979 apparently).
Also, I pointed out that the polio vaccine did NOT have a 100% efficacy and that is what I want to know about.
So this wouldn't count as a medicine with 100% effectiveness.

I agree that for most people (with the exception of those who literally cannot get vaccinated) the vaccine is more than likely going to be the safer route than going without based on current evidence, at least for the short-term (since we don't know the long-term consequences), but at the same time I am very much against using authoritarian tactics to force a vaccine on people that cannot guarantee results (i.e. STOPPING the pandemic) and may end up in the long-term having done far more harm than good.

So that list of diseases I gave a while ago where the vaccines had less than 100% efficacy rates.... the government didn't force those vaccines onto people did they.
So why did, pretty much everyone get the vaccine?

Because they trusted experts and they saw what was going on around them; they saw their friends dying and wanted it to stop and they knew whta it was and how to do it. They didn't know about the long term effects of polio vaccines, they just lined up to get it; they were willing to put themselves at an "unknown risk" to keep themselves safe from a VERY REAL known threat. Now, not everyone got that vaccine but many many did (especially children). Sufficient numbers of the population got vaccinated and THAT is why it disappeared.

Measles is a WAAAAAY better example though. So long as vaccination numbers in our current populations stay high measles will basically be a nonissue. And then watch what happens when a population in a certain area stop taking hte vaccine: Numbers increase. There have been some BIG measles outbreaks in populations that refuse that vaccine.

I am against people believing that just because something seems good to them, then it's equally good for everyone and that anyone who doesn't agree is just being selfish (or a terrorist in the case of this vaccine event.)

Outside of medical issues for taking not taking a vaccine, the vaccine IS good for them. And it is GOOD for them because it is BETTER than the alternative.
I DEFINITELY don't think folks refusing the vaccine are being selfish. I have other not so flattering words but I wouldn't call them selfish; primarily, I see them more as "duped" or underinformed.

I am also against the hypocrisy of the vaccinated yelling about responsibility while under the false belief that because they are vaccinated, they are immune to any further responsibility when they are themselves capable of both getting and transmitting the virus and even becoming hospitalized and dying of COVID. Sure, less statistically likely, but it happens and it happens a lot.

So you'd be okay with my position of "yelling about responsibility" of the unvaccinated while I also remain masked, hygiened and distanced up as best as I can?

 

[KCfromNC]

The sound bite captures the glaring reality that unvaccinated people overwhelmingly account for new cases and serious infections, with a recent study of government data showing that hospitalization rates among unvaccinated adults were 17 times higher than among those fully vaccinated.

But the term doesn’t appear to be changing hearts and minds among unvaccinated people.​

​

I remember recent claims that the vaccine didn't do anything to prevent covid. Anyone else?

But hey, let's blame everyone else if anti-vaxxers aren't willing to come around even after learning they are very effective.

 

[bekkilyn]

I appreciate thta question. Frankly, I don't think I CAN convince people that it's true.
Convincing usually allows for some measure of logic which can be concretely dismantled or new information can be accepted. The issue is that a lot of vaccine skeptics are getting information from a poisoned well. A place where outliers are considered MORE important and worthy of sharing than the trend data. How can I convince someone that in that position, I do not know.
I understand the fear of the unknown, for sure. I understand the concern about "long term impacts"...at least I understand it in terms of its logic. I mean, if you consider every other known vaccine that exists in the universe has essentially no long term impacts, the decision seems clear to me.

I've had enough people hospitalized, run right down, or die from COVID for me to skew my risk analysis.
I mean, there have been 3 deaths directly linked to the J&J vaccine.
There were 17 people struck by lightenning in the US last year.

These numbers affect how I make my decisions. I assume it is numbers that affect other people's decisions too (though that is DEFINITELY presumptuous).

As I've argued earlier in this thread, humans in general are not logical creatures, although we often like to think we are. People make decisions for many different reasons, only some of which include logic. However, we also have to be very careful about assuming that someone else's decision is not logical simply because it isn't the same as ours.

Ok but you don't get Polio because for the last several decades people were constantly getting vaccinated. The chances of you being exposed to it have been 0 (the US hasn't had a case since 1979 apparently).
Also, I pointed out that the polio vaccine did NOT have a 100% efficacy and that is what I want to know about.
So this wouldn't count as a medicine with 100% effectiveness.

So that list of diseases I gave a while ago where the vaccines had less than 100% efficacy rates.... the government didn't force those vaccines onto people did they.
So why did, pretty much everyone get the vaccine?

Because they trusted experts and they saw what was going on around them; they saw their friends dying and wanted it to stop and they knew whta it was and how to do it. They didn't know about the long term effects of polio vaccines, they just lined up to get it; they were willing to put themselves at an "unknown risk" to keep themselves safe from a VERY REAL known threat. Now, not everyone got that vaccine but many many did (especially children). Sufficient numbers of the population got vaccinated and THAT is why it disappeared.

Measles is a WAAAAAY better example though. So long as vaccination numbers in our current populations stay high measles will basically be a nonissue. And then watch what happens when a population in a certain area stop taking hte vaccine: Numbers increase. There have been some BIG measles outbreaks in populations that refuse that vaccine.

Most people with the exception of the miniscule amount of actual anti-vaxxers are able to see the benefit of the vaccines that have stood the test of time and therefore would not need to be forced into it. That's why there isn't much resistance to those vaccine.

COVID is a whole other matter. Because of the distrust and division that has been encouraged in our government for decades, and the fact that there is very little trust for government or even each other, people, and also that some minority groups actually *have* unknowingly been test subjects in the past for experimental vaccines, it makes a great deal of sense that people aren't just going to be willing test subjects themselves for an unproven vaccine with no data on long-term effects just because a government or other people they don't know tells them it is "safe". Not because they are anti-vaxxers, but because of many other factors.

Outside of medical issues for taking not taking a vaccine, the vaccine IS good for them. And it is GOOD for them because it is BETTER than the alternative.

You are probably thinking alternative as in greater chance of getting and dying from the virus, but they might be thinking just one more way the government is overstepping its bounds to take away our rights and freedoms to make our own choices. After all, American citizens are still being humiliated and treated like criminals at airports in the name of "safety". And there are also simply those who are waiting a bit longer to see how people who have been vaccinated react to it. I remember having a very severe allergic reaction to medication my doctor assured me was safe months after I started taking it.

I DEFINITELY don't think folks refusing the vaccine are being selfish. I have other not so flattering words but I wouldn't call them selfish; primarily, I see them more as "duped" or underinformed.

Then perhaps part of the solution is to provide information but without all of the contempt and insults that so many seem to think helps them get their point across to people.

So you'd be okay with my position of "yelling about responsibility" of the unvaccinated while I also remain masked, hygiened and distanced up as best as I can?

I'm a whole lot more okay with it than I am with the (what seems to be) multitude of vaccinated folks treating the unvaccinated as if they are all selfish, filthy "lepers" who are all running amok intentionally trying to terrorize and murder everyone and therefore deserve to lose their jobs and be put in jail, among other things.

 

[KCfromNC]

By Jove I think he’s got it!

Real people are actually motivated to put themselves at serious risk simply to prove that they're not willing to listen to people who know what they're talking about? That's a pretty weird way to make decisions.

 

[Mayzoo]

This makes no sense and has no purpose except to mislead people into thinking getting sick with COVID is better because... ???

If you already had full blown COVID you probably aren't going to get it again in comparison to those exposed to bits of the virus in vaccines. So duhr, I ain't gonna get vaccinated to protect myself because if I get the virus I'll be protected from it???

If you get HIV its unlikely you will get HIV again. If you survive polio you are more likely not to get it than those vaccinated against it. What are you thinking?

Most of what I have read is that they are thinking this is no big deal and easily survivable. Many simply believe they, of course, will not have severe symptoms and would never die or have long-term symptoms from Covid.

The percentage of deaths is small, so "it won't/can't happen to me." However, that is also very likely what many of the 660,000 already dead thought too.

 

[Mayzoo]

At this point the patients are likely all vaccinated anyway, right?

Some, yes. In a hospital where sick people tend to go, the odds are much higher than in the general population that the patients medically can't/shouldn't be vaccinated. In those cases, they are relying on the staff to help protect them from what they cannot protect themselves from.

 

[SacredHorseGhost]

Most of what I have read is that they are thinking this is no big deal and easily survivable. Many simply believe they, of course, will not have severe symptoms and would never die or have long-term symptoms from Covid.

The percentage of deaths is small, so "it won't/can't happen to me." However, that is also very likely what many of the 660,000 already dead thought too.

And every time they get sick, they run the risk of making the next mutation.

 

[Blade]

So much cherry picking still going on It does show us how many ...nothing bad but how many follow blindly. Its how they say it like as of late some news paper in Canada I think said "let them die" those that are not vaccinated. That's how some people and doctors really think. As Christ said "and because lawlessness will increase, the love of many people will grow cold".

A post above talked about.. I am guessing those that were not vaccinated "no big deal and easily survivable". Theres a truth there but whats left out is all those that were vaccinated and now are living with some awful side effect. Each one that took that vaccine believed "it won't happen to me". The 660,000 are not all because of covid. No one here has truly looked into those numbers. We all "cherry pick" some site left or right (few stay in the middle) site and thats the real facts Start looking in to that number you find doctor after doctor that WORKED on those cases most had some precondition with covid. Where it was impossible to say just what caused the death yet so many were labeled "cause of death COVID". There was a number 250,000 that dropped to 70,000 now.

This post was because I searched on "Death rates". Google..yeah you can guess what link after link said. So again I went to a different search engine that all can use and look at all the different links GOOGLE will not show. Seeing things from the .. as I said before UK, Israel and very famous Collages with different findings about Covid. Real Doctors.. talking about real patients.

So us handful talking back and forth has effected nothing. Nothing what so ever has changed. Lol this will go over good on a Christian site.. Covid? JESUS is the only answer....I could tell you what just happen to me and the same exact thing to my wifes friends husband. One knows Christ .. knows the promises of God the other.. no. One no pain what so ever.. never none the other? Great pain.. what the wife said. Praying for him. I am not better or lucky.. just been walking this all my life.

I get hit by all kind of things like everyone else.. I just know I don't have to keep it. As long as you do not know who what you are IN CHRIST the enemy will always walk all over you. You can look at what is happening all around you or.. trust in cling to Christ and what He did on that cross for all. See is never me.. its Christ I give Him all the glory all the thanks all the praise. You have no problems all you need is faith in God. Peter and John said.. you look at us as if we did this by our own power. No its FIATH in that name! YESHUA/JESUS!

 

[Lain Iwakura]

If nearly everyone got vaccinated it would find no home or person to transmit to sustainably. It can infect the vaccinated, but not at the same rate or level the unvaccinated.

I really don't understand the contempt for basic science.

Except the large amounts of 'animal reservoirs,' should we develop and forcible vaccinate deer, cats, minks, etc. Or should we wage extermination caimpaigns against unvaxed animals.

Regardless, "basic science" is a term that can only those totally ignorant in the philosophy of science could say. You fall under Karl Popper's critique of certitude fanaticism.

 

[Lain Iwakura]

I appreciate thta question. Frankly, I don't think I CAN convince people that it's true.
Convincing usually allows for some measure of logic which can be concretely dismantled or new information can be accepted. The issue is that a lot of vaccine skeptics are getting information from a poisoned well. A place where outliers are considered MORE important and worthy of sharing than the trend data. How can I convince someone that in that position, I do not know.

As I've said in other threads, you've got to handle it at a presuppositional level - and a critical error in how things are being done is the absolute ignorance of presuppositional critique (which becomes undifferentiated from religious dogmatization.) An MIT study showed a major difference between the two positions is that those likely to support the government's policies tend towards naive scientific realism, whereas those who tend to reject them tend towards more sophisticated philosophical positions (and greater data literacy.)

And this is not to be that surprising, the two demographic groups most likely to reject the government polices and the vaccinated are the not-college-educated and the Ph.D's, with Ph.D's, if I recall correctly having the highest rate of rejection.

 

[rambot]

As I've said in other threads, you've got to handle it at a presuppositional level - and a critical error in how things are being done is the absolute ignorance of presuppositional critique (which becomes undifferentiated from religious dogmatization.) An MIT study showed a major difference between the two positions is that those likely to support the government's policies tend towards naive scientific realism, whereas those who tend to reject them tend towards more sophisticated philosophical positions (and greater data literacy.)

And this is not to be that surprising, the two demographic groups most likely to reject the government polices and the vaccinated are the not-college-educated and the Ph.D's, with Ph.D's, if I recall correctly having the highest rate of rejection.

Gonna shoot it to you straight.

I have no idea what this is about...

Unless you are suggesting that because people with PhDs are hesitant, then we should be listening?
Cause that's silly.

 

[rambot]

This makes no sense and has no purpose except to mislead people into thinking getting sick with COVID is better because... ???

If you already had full blown COVID you probably aren't going to get it again in comparison to those exposed to bits of the virus in vaccines. So duhr, I ain't gonna get vaccinated to protect myself because if I get the virus I'll be protected from it???

If you get HIV its unlikely you will get HIV again. If you survive polio you are more likely not to get it than those vaccinated against it. What are you thinking?

I just want to point something out; If the first sentence is "this makes no sense", then you are misunderstanding it. The information is not false just because it makes no sense to you.

 

[Gene2memE]

The 660,000 are not all because of covid.

You're probably right, but from the wrong direction.

In all statistical likelihood, US deaths from COVID-19 are actually significantly higher than the ~660,000 presently estimated.

The CDC's estimate of excess mortality (that is deaths above the usual number) between March 2020 and December 2020 was 729,000 extra deaths. This is about 30% above the fatalities you'd normally expect in any given year. This against the CDC's formal total of 382,073 COVID-19 deaths for 2020.

This is the highest estimate though, and another estimate for 2020 is that there were 375,235 excess deaths in 2020, with 83% directly attributable to COVID-19 and 17% attributable to indirect effects of COVID-19.

Heuveline et al estimated ~514,000 excess US deaths directly attributable to COVID-19. Woolfe et al estimated ~523,000 more deaths than you'd normally expect for 2020. Islam et al estimated ~594,000 deaths. Most other estimates are between 500,000 and 600,000 for 2020 alone.

Anyway you slice it, SOMETHING caused between 375,000 and 730,000 extra deaths in the US in 2020. And, 2021 is already close to matching that. If it wasn't COVID-19 that caused these deaths, then what was it?

 

[SacredHorseGhost]

I just want to point something out; If the first sentence is "this makes no sense", then you are misunderstanding it. The information is not false just because it makes no sense to you.

Or you aren't making sense. What point does if you get something you are less likely to get it again than if vaccinated serve? What's the logic? If you get it you'll have better immunity than the thing to stop you from getting it in the first place? It's better to not get vaccinated, get COVID, because that works better at not getting COVID?

 

[SacredHorseGhost]

Except the large amounts of 'animal reservoirs,' should we develop and forcible vaccinate deer, cats, minks, etc. Or should we wage extermination caimpaigns against unvaxed animals.

Regardless, "basic science" is a term that can only those totally ignorant in the philosophy of science could say. You fall under Karl Popper's critique of certitude fanaticism.

You don't seem to understand the basic science of vaccines and herd immunity. If the majority of a nation's population gets vaccinated, the illness becomes a non-issue as it is very difficult to transmit. If nearly everyone was vaccinated then you aren't going to have outbreaks and variants from exposure to animals where transmission is even less likely.
Having lots of people unvaccinated makes it difficult for it to stop mutating and have greater chances of infection. We see this in other diseases even among humans. You can essentially wipe out a disease in first world countries even though they exist in developing nations. At a certain level of vaccination, the continued transmission becomes less and less likely that it is unsustainable and fizzles out.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

This isn't an argument for not getting vaccinated though.

For people to get the "natural" immunity they must first catch the disease.
If they catch the disease then they have 20% chance of needing hospital treatment and a 1-3% chance of death (depending on their age and current health condition of course).

For people that get the "vaccine" immunity, they must first choose to get an injection.
The chance that the injection will put them in hospital is way, way, way lower than 20% (I presume)
The chances that the injection will result in death is way, way, way lower than 1-3% (I presume, they wouldn't be allowed to sell the injection if it were killing 1% of those who take it)

For vaccinated people that then go on to catch the disease, they have a much lower chance than 20% of ending up in hospital and a much lower chance than 1% of dying.

So it seems to me, that people that get vaccinated AND later catch the disease are better off than people that don't get vaccinated AND catch the disease.

This case study above is (for some strange reason) ignoring the first time a person catches the disease (ignoring the hospitalisation chance and the death chance)
And simply comparing the what next. As if the first time catching the disease didn't count.

Not necessarily true that they must "catch the disease" if by that you mean know they have been exposed or are positive. There were millions of those who were exposed yet never got ill at all and are immune. You know, the "asymptomatic carriers" they went on about incessantly, trying to scare everyone.

Probably pretty much everyone has been exposed by now, and is either immune, or they got ill (or recovered). The unfortunately susceptible had worse outcomes, as normally happens every single year with a flu - except for 2020. Most of those had co-morbidities.

 

[whatbogsends]

If nearly everyone got vaccinated it would find no home or person to transmit to sustainably. It can infect the vaccinated, but not at the same rate or level the unvaccinated.

I really don't understand the contempt for basic science.

You don't seem to understand the basic science of vaccines and herd immunity. If the majority of a nation's population gets vaccinated, the illness becomes a non-issue as it is very difficult to transmit. If nearly everyone was vaccinated then you aren't going to have outbreaks and variants from exposure to animals where transmission is even less likely.
Having lots of people unvaccinated makes it difficult for it to stop mutating and have greater chances of infection. We see this in other diseases even among humans. You can essentially wipe out a disease in first world countries even though they exist in developing nations. At a certain level of vaccination, the continued transmission becomes less and less likely that it is unsustainable and fizzles out.

There are several strains which already bypass current vaccines. Delta, the prevalent variant now in the US, bypasses all of our vaccines with relative ease. Estimates of protection from infection were originally in the 90s with Alpha, but dropped to 80%...then 70% and even been reported lower than 40%. Our vaccines appear to be even less effective against Lambda.

Pfizer and BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine is just 39% effective in Israel where the delta variant is the dominant strain, but still provides strong protection against severe illness and hospitalization, according to a new report from the country’s Health Ministry.

The efficacy figure, which is based on an unspecified number of people between June 20 and July 17, is down from an earlier estimate of 64% two weeks ago and conflicts with data out of the U.K. that found the shot was 88% effective against symptomatic disease caused by the variant.

Delta variant: Pfizer Covid vaccine 39% effective in Israel, prevents severe illness (cnbc.com)

A vaccine with <50% effectiveness in stopping spread won't create herd immunity, even in populations with 100% vaccine uptake.

The contempt comes from people claiming they're presenting The Science, but are actually presenting science so basic that it ignores the complexities and realities of the pandemic.

 

[hedrick]

There are several strains which already bypass current vaccines. Delta, the prevalent variant now in the US, bypasses all of our vaccines with relative ease. Estimates of protection from infection were originally in the 90s with Alpha, but dropped to 80%...then 70% and even been reported lower than 40%. Our vaccines appear to be even less effective against Lambda.

Pfizer and BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine is just 39% effective in Israel where the delta variant is the dominant strain, but still provides strong protection against severe illness and hospitalization, according to a new report from the country’s Health Ministry.

The efficacy figure, which is based on an unspecified number of people between June 20 and July 17, is down from an earlier estimate of 64% two weeks ago and conflicts with data out of the U.K. that found the shot was 88% effective against symptomatic disease caused by the variant.

Delta variant: Pfizer Covid vaccine 39% effective in Israel, prevents severe illness (cnbc.com)

A vaccine with <50% effectiveness in stopping spread won't create herd immunity, even in populations with 100% vaccine uptake.

The contempt comes from people claiming they're presenting The Science, but are actually presenting science so basic that it ignores the complexities and realities of the pandemic.

First, the lowered number is for infections. The vaccines remain effective for hospitalization and death. Second there have been many recent studies, the one you’re quoting is the lowest value. It’s sort of an outlier.

 

[stevil]

Not necessarily true that they must "catch the disease" if by that you mean know they have been exposed or are positive. There were millions of those who were exposed yet never got ill at all and are immune. You know, the "asymptomatic carriers" they went on about incessantly, trying to scare everyone.

What?

People that are asymptomatic they have caught the disease, they just aren't showing symptoms.
It's a numbers game
A certain percent are asymptomatic, about 20% end up in hospital, about 1-3% end up dead.

Probably pretty much everyone has been exposed by now, and is either immune, or they got ill (or recovered). The unfortunately susceptible had worse outcomes, as normally happens every single year with a flu - except for 2020. Most of those had co-morbidities.

Very few people in my country have caught this disease, only about 0.07%