> I don't think that study disproves my statement, the study didn't/couldn't see viral load or infectiousness. They were using a measure called Ct cutoff, whic

> I don't think that study disproves my statement, the study didn't/couldn't see viral load or infectiousness. They were using a measure called Ct cutoff, which (if used that way) is a crude measure of viral load, as the CDC points out in its own literature[1]: > Since Ct values can vary based on many factors, it is not a good indicator of how infectious a person is or how much virus is present in a person (known as viral load). However, it also points out in the sentence prior: > It is still unknown how much virus is needed to transmit the virus from person-to-person and cause new infections. What no longer needs to be ascertained is how this data has been interpreted by the experts, which is that the vaccines do not confer much, if any, advantage against transmission. There was the hope before the vaccines came out that they might but it was pointed out repeatedly that it would be unlikely given the nature of coronaviruses, and that has come to be the case. > if hospitals are no longer overwhelmed (since people aren't getting very sick and dying) then the governments will probably drop restrictions I hate to repeat myself, but the examples of Israel and the UK should also remind you that it is mere hope you are expressing, not anything borne out by experience. I hope you are right but my experience of people and how loathe they are to relinquish power - especially people who seek it, like politicians - tempers that somewhat. [1] https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/cedep/novel-coronavirus/Ct_Fact_Sheet.pdf https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/cedep/nov...