I would hope it’s a truism. It would be a truism if everyone bought into basic germ theory. But it doesn’t seem to be regarded as a truism, so here we are. Yes, I do mean to include never-symptomatic cases with infections, although I do exclude instances where someone may hypothetically have one or more virus particles in or on them somewhere but in a manner of location or quantity such that they never would test positive as being infections. It’s been argued that vaccines, while reducing infections, don’t reduce transmissions, or at least don’t reduce transmission by as much. I think that is bullshit. I also think it’s extraordinarily unlikely that we ever find a pathogen that spreads exponentially without some sort of exponential growth of the pathogen in the host that would be detectable by a suitable test.
Did I say the probability was lower back in the spring than it is now? OK, fine, lol. It was lower back in the spring than it was now. Do I think the probability of transmission is some immutable quantity that never changes in proportion to the degree that the virus escapes the immune response? lol, of course not.
I just stated in no uncertain terms yesterday what I was wrong about. If you want to take me to task about those two things, knock yourself out.
Yes. This was all wrapped up in a broader debate about masking and other mitigation at various points, but the plot got lost ITT a long time ago.
Fixed that for you. I’ve seen data ranging from 71% to 88% on efficacy after the second shot/booster. It drops to the 40% range after 10-14 weeks. So if you want to focus on the waning being more rapid, have at it, nobody is disputing that.
But you’re spreading misinformation if you’re disputing the scientific evidence on efficacy.
And I doubt the secondary attack rates of OG covid were reduced by 94% even though the vaccines had 94% efficacy against OG covid. It’s almost like being around someone in the same house day after day might be pretty close to the most dangerous kind of exposure, and thus might heavily skew toward the cases most likely to breakthrough.
I’ve seen data that this is not the case from your own links, so your claim seems unclear at best right now. I would lean towards agreeing, but it’s not definitive.
This is another leap without supportive data. Again this is not me arguing against it, it’s me arguing against a conclusion either way here. There are confounding factors that make it impossible to draw a clear conclusion at this point in time.
Again…
That’s efficacy measured against cases.
OK, do you have a better citation, or is it just that your gut is unfalsifiable?
Which is not a measure of vaccine effectiveness.
Without evidence either way of how many vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people are missing in the case numbers, this is worthless.
No, asymptomatic spread doesn’t change what we know about vaccine effectiveness. Asymptomatic spread was a thing even before vaccines were a thing.
You’re right, we are. I believe in published data, and you take your gut feelings and manufacture whatever reality you want.
Because of Basic Germ Theory of course!
Because it’s a more contagious virus that also partially escapes the immune response from past infection and vaccination with existing vaccines. Also, immunity wanes with time. All of these things have been measured and published in the literature. We also have only 8 states that have 40% or more of the adult population boosted, and no state has more than 50%. Children under 5 are still entirely unvaccinated, and 5-12 isn’t as abundant as we’d like, either.
Of course? That’s why I said it “partially escapes the immune response from past infection and vaccination with existing vaccines.” Geez dude, you’re really aggressive about not reading things I put right there for you.
And because 85% effectiveness isn’t 100% effectiveness.
That’s not why I went after Churchill.
This is definitely not it.
This is a science denial position from you then, you are contradicting scientific studies and proven efficacy numbers.
I am currently wearing an n95 everywhere I go. For starters I’m past 10-14 weeks from my booster. But also, perhaps the best way to think of this is like a kevlar vest that stops 85% of bullets. If you’re getting shot once a year, you expect to catch one that goes through once every 6.67 years. But if you’re going through a daily mass shooting where you get hit by a bullet every day, it’s only going to take you 6.67 days to expect one to get through. That doesn’t mean the kevlar vest is any less effective at stopping bullets, it means you live in a shitty country full of mass shootings.
Completely unnecessary and not helping the productiveness of these discussions whatsoever.
How about instead we all make an effort to avoid being snide to each other?
You literally deny the efficacy that has been shown in scientific studies. If that’s not science denial and at a bare minimum anti-vaxx adjacent, what is it?
So it sounds like you’re going to continue name calling and stirring up rancor. Why? Wouldn’t you rather we all took the temperature down?
How about the two of you both agree to stop this? Enough of this bullshit about who started it or who’s not calling out other people enough. @anon38180840 what do you say?
He’s demanding that we give churchill carte blanche to post YouTubes by “Dr. John” who has promoted ivermectin and flirted with the anti-vaxxers, and “lay off.”
No dice. It’s remarkable to me that every time churchill posts decent content, people engage in good faith and discuss it, but when he posts nonsense from this quack not-a-medical-doctor, and we push back, all of a sudden it’s a call to arms for JT.
I have stuck to the arguments and attacked them instead of the poster throughout this, and been treated to name-calling in return. I’m not going to lay off posting that is denying science or pushing misinformation, whether it’s accidental or intentional.
The terms to not have fighting are to let misinformation fly with no pushback? No way.
Well, great, you two have fun.
It’s remarkable to me that it was CN that posted the recent Dr John ‘citation’ (which Dr John never stated) and that you attribute this shite posting to me. I merely called out CN’s shitposting and there you go, trying to rewrite history again. I felt compelled to post the video, in which Dr John reported on the ONS’ FOI request just to prove CN was full of it.
If you could lay off the obvious misinformation you’re peddling, that would be great. I was trying to give you a clean slate.
I’m begging both you and CW to agree to stop name calling each other. It doesn’t stop until both of you want it to stop.
same energy as Data towards the end here:
