4 ms·
Alright, let's see this proof ("statistical" or otherwise) that being vaccinated meant you were "unlikely to transmit". Keep in mind, this proof has to deal wi
by ifyoubuildit 1y ago
Alright, let's see this proof ("statistical" or otherwise) that being vaccinated meant you were "unlikely to transmit".
Keep in mind, this proof has to deal with the fact that 1) a majority of people got vaccinated and 2) a majority of people got infected.
The strongest case you can make here is that for a brief period of time being vaccinated appeared to maybe have reduced symptomatic infections. That's not what unlikely to transmit means.
- NewJazz 1y agoI already posted it in a reply to you. Work on your reading comprehension.
- ifyoubuildit 1y agoYour "statistical proof" is an offhand vague quote about how it "still can help". Here's an actual study from nejm: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 There was a brief period where this study shows 2 doses reduced the rate of transmission by 68%...during a short window of time. This effect was much less and even shorter lived for later variants. Ultimately, pretty much all of these people would go on to contract covid, making the claim that the vaccines would make you "unlikely to transmit" very obviously untrue. Remember, the statement wasn't unlikely to transmit for a few months. It was unlikely to transmit, period. Even if they continued to reduce transmission by 68%, which they clearly didn't come close to, "unlikely to transmit" would still be an overstatement. This I what a fleshed out argument looks like. Do you have anything substantial to offer in return? EDIT: strong work there.
- NewJazz 1y agoI offered a nejm study via the apnews article but you're too dumb to click links.