Huh ? Being vaccinated doesn’t prevent transmission.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorcus
Printable View
Huh ? Being vaccinated doesn’t prevent transmission.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorcus
There are degrees of transmission. It's not binary, 1 or 0.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
Mate , it doesn’t prevent transmission, it’s acknowledged everywhereQuote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Bmj
Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, “but not so much against transmission.”
No but it stops the infection developing severe symptoms in people, thus preventing bed blockage for those who need treatment urgently. Also the more people are vaccinated the easier it becomes to control the infection.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
The key is to protect the majority population
Oh mate...just read things a bit more slowly and you can probably digest them.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
Is it because I used words like "degrees" and "binary"?
Fair enough , I’m on a phoneQuote:
Originally Posted by lardy
I would suggest that you read the rest of that article.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298
But it doesn’t prevent transmission so the people who are unvaccinated pose a minimal risk to the vaccinated as the vaccine should do it’s jobQuote:
Originally Posted by Dorcus
If you think it’s acceptable to segregate non vaccinated, which could be for many many reasons then I cannot take you seriously either.
Covid 19 was a very infectious virus.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
Imagine someone gets it, and coughs and splutters for seven days. Maybe it only feels like a bad cold, they're generally ok, but they have the symptoms.
Now imagine that another vaccinated person gets it and feels bad for a day but doesn't really cough much (which was my experience). They have much reduced symptoms.
Which person do you think will infect more people?
There are people who were unvaccinated but not through choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
It's 2023, I can't believe we're having the same conversations that we had in 20 and 21.
No idea as the same article says thisQuote:
Originally Posted by lardy
What impact does that have on policymaking?
The fact that vaccines are good at preventing serious infection, but less good at preventing transmission makes policymaking difficult. The UK has changed its rules9 on the amount of time those who test positive for covid-19 must spend in self-isolation, first from 10 days to seven, then to five, provided they test negative on a lateral flow test. That decision follows the US, which cut the self-isolation period to five days in late December10 because “the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of illness.”
“They’re recognising that vaccines aren’t preventing transmission, and you’ve got too many people having to isolate,” says Bauld. “Policymakers have decided that the game’s up on transmission, but that you need a different approach.
My point is if you’re vaccinated you are protected , unvaccinated may not be for many many reasons and they should not be discriminated against.
Whether you take me seriously or not is of no interest to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
If you can't see that if a vaccine is proven to be efficacious then the greater the number of vaccinated people then the greater the chance of containing the disease and its spread. One doesn't have to be an epedemiologist to understand that.
Just to be clear I don't advocate hard labour for those who choose not to be vaccinated but I think vaccine passports to be a sensible idea. Forced labour should be reserved for the libertarians who peddle vaccine misinformation and scare mongering.
Wow ….. wow …..last paragraph is unbelievableQuote:
Originally Posted by Dorcus
In which case that confirms my impression of you and your failure to grasp the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
I grasp what you’re saying very clearly, and my impression of you is likewiseQuote:
Originally Posted by Dorcus
Surely policy makers reduced isolation time because vaccines meant people were sick and a transmission risk for less time.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
The covid timeline can roughly be split into:
2020 - pre vaccine
2021 - vaccine roll out
2022 - post vaccine
With a case study of The Entire World, I honestly don't know how anyone can compare life in 2020 with life in 2022 and not conclude that the vaccines did their job.
Yep
Lock em up and forced hard labour for the conspiracy nut cases
Keep us safe !
I know someone !Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
The thread was about excess deaths my friend and it got sidetracked as it tends to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
Now , We all know your views , they are not mine but you are of course entitled to your opinion.
Thought you would pleased to be bracketed with them. Suit yourselves!Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorcus
Here you go re vax passports
https://rumble.com/v1nhpkq-eu-parlia...earing-if.html
This is the bizarre world you seem to inhabit, where a diet of this sort of stuff addles brains if you are not careful.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
There are two questions with two simple answers.
Q1 Were vaccines tested for transmission before they were approved?
A No
Indeed you didn't need a rabid Dutch MEP in October 2022 to confirm this. The Pfizer CEO told MSM two years earlier.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-main-n1249928
Q2. Even though it wasn't tested for it prior to release did the Pfizer vaccine reduce rates of transmission?Quote:
Bourla said it's still unknown whether people who've been vaccinated could still be carriers of the virus, able to transmit it to others.
"I think this is something that needs to be examined. We are not certain about that right now," he said.
A Yes. Especially the earlier deadlier variants but less so with Omicron onwards.
Why is this so difficult for some (that's you) to understand?
It’s not difficult for me to understand, and it’s been well known for sometime , but there appears to be a requirement to add links and news items to back up anything up.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
Clearly you know your onions in this field , shame you were not more vocal at the time though.
I am not sure TWGL1 was active at the time but vocal about what?Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
Not many people disagreed at the time that a vaccine sufficiently tested as an effective barrier to infection should not be rolled out. Particularly as it was the major means of lifting lockdowns and restrictions. I was certainly supportive of it so again, what would I be vocal about?
Vocal about what? I had my first Covid vaccine in Feb 2021, I did so knowing that there were risks involved - moreso than with the flu vaccine I’ve been getting every year for around a decade. The vaccine had been produced very quickly out of necessity and so there was a chance that corners were cut and not all of required procedures followed as stringently as normal. Nevertheless, I still decided that I’d be better off with the vaccine than I would be without it. I would have thought any reasonably intelligent person would have come to the same conclusion- especially at that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
Two years down the line, it has become clear that the vaccine wasn’t perfect - the thing that surprises me is that some (almost all of whom are anti vaxxers) are so shocked that everyone who had the vaccine is not in perfect health!