6 ms·

> They pose a legitimate risk to other people. This is not true, any more than it is for vaccinated people. Viruses will still spread through a fully-vaccinat

> They pose a legitimate risk to other people. This is not true, any more than it is for vaccinated people. Viruses will still spread through a fully-vaccinated population, and they will still mutate in a fully-vaccinated population. The CDC released a report [1] showing proportional numbers of cases coming from fully vaccinated people (74% of cases against 69% of the population fully vaccinated). Treating people who are not getting the vaccine as enemies is not going to convince us. In fact, this whole thing has made me, in particular, suspicious of other vaccines that I will research and make decisions for myself about. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7031e2-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7031e2-H.pdf

taurath 5y ago
The CDC study gives some credence to your theory but your conclusion is by all evidence wrong. It shows nothing about the transmissibility of vaccinated people who test positive. It also disregards previous evidence before the delta variant that vaccinations widely prevented positive tests. So there is SOME effect there. Taking a study that says “there’s definitely some chance of transmission” and making the conclusion “there’s no difference” only happens due to your predetermined conclusion. A real look at the actual body of evidence on vaccines necessarily draws different conclusions. One need only look at the overlay of cases and vaccination rates across different US states to show you’re just flat out wrong.
- ghoward 5y ago
  Most of what you say is correct, but saying absolutely that unvaccinated people are endangering other people and vaccinated people are not is also false.
  - _carbyau_ 5y ago
    Making an irrelevant but true statement about vaccinated people doesn't make the antivaxx stance correct. Similar manner to drink driving, sober people can also hurt others when driving. This is about where we draw the line. When it comes to drink driving and antivaxxers they both endanger others to an unacceptably high level.
    - throwawaythekey 5y ago
      Don't get me started on how I'm a better driver when tipsy than the average 80 year old that still has their license... The tongue in cheek point I'm trying to make is that too much of the conversation focuses on relative risk. Relative risk obsession has people not taking more risky, but still incredibly safe (at least in the short term) vaccines here in Australia. Absolute risk (or its delta) tends to be a much more salient number to the victim. It does help the antivaxx crowd in some circuitous arguments however, as the chance of an unvaccinated person killing a vaccinated person is low if vaccines work!
    - ghoward 5y ago
      You cannot say that unvaccinated people endanger others to an unacceptably high level when we don't even know what that level is! Also, calling people unvaccinated agency COVID anti-vaxxers, when most are not, is likely to lead to some becoming that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

taurath 5y ago

The CDC study gives some credence to your theory but your conclusion is by all evidence wrong. It shows nothing about the transmissibility of vaccinated people who test positive. It also disregards previous evidence before the delta variant that vaccinations widely prevented positive tests. So there is SOME effect there. Taking a study that says “there’s definitely some chance of transmission” and making the conclusion “there’s no difference” only happens due to your predetermined conclusion. A real look at the actual body of evidence on vaccines necessarily draws different conclusions. One need only look at the overlay of cases and vaccination rates across different US states to show you’re just flat out wrong.

ghoward 5y ago
Most of what you say is correct, but saying absolutely that unvaccinated people are endangering other people and vaccinated people are not is also false.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  Making an irrelevant but true statement about vaccinated people doesn't make the antivaxx stance correct. Similar manner to drink driving, sober people can also hurt others when driving. This is about where we draw the line. When it comes to drink driving and antivaxxers they both endanger others to an unacceptably high level.
  - throwawaythekey 5y ago
    Don't get me started on how I'm a better driver when tipsy than the average 80 year old that still has their license... The tongue in cheek point I'm trying to make is that too much of the conversation focuses on relative risk. Relative risk obsession has people not taking more risky, but still incredibly safe (at least in the short term) vaccines here in Australia. Absolute risk (or its delta) tends to be a much more salient number to the victim. It does help the antivaxx crowd in some circuitous arguments however, as the chance of an unvaccinated person killing a vaccinated person is low if vaccines work!
  - ghoward 5y ago
    You cannot say that unvaccinated people endanger others to an unacceptably high level when we don't even know what that level is! Also, calling people unvaccinated agency COVID anti-vaxxers, when most are not, is likely to lead to some becoming that.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]