> You deliberately missed my point, which was about how and where the virus spreads, regardless of vaccination rates.
I didn’t deliberately miss your point, I’m saying your point is wrong.
You can’t talk about the “how and where the virus spreads” if you are acting as if vaccinated and unvaccinated populations have the same rate of spread. The existence of breakthrough infections does not invalidate the fact that the vaccine lowers transmission rates in the population.
It isn’t some binary field of isUseful where the presence of single transmission of the virus from someone who is vaccinated flips the value to false
> Since the vaccination doesn't help against spread, the argument is not true in my opinion.
Can you provide a source for this statement? As far as I know, even though not 100% effective against infections and virus shedding, the vaccines do help against spread so I'd like to know if I'm misinformed.
>>So the virus will happily keep infecting as many people as it can regardless of the vaccines.
This part very specifically and provably isn't true. Vaccines reduce the actual transmission rate by about 90%. What you said about vaccinated people who have managed to get infected still carrying the same viral load is actually true - but your comment makes it sound as if the virus will keep spreading at the same pace regardless of whether you are vaccinated or not - which is simply not true.
Of course not. It's not about the absolute transmission rate of vaccinated people. It's about the reduction in the transmission rate compared to the unvaccinated. Regardless of the absolute effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing transmission, it seems to me it should remain fundamental to protecting public health if unvaccinated people spread the virus several times faster.
Of course, if the effect were only marginal, that would be one thing. But that is not what the data seems to show at this point.
> The science is murky on whether being vaccinated prevents being infectious. Others have pointed it out and are being flagged.
It’s because they’re being disingenuous.
Vaccination reduces infection severity and length. Reduced infection severity reduces coughing, which reduces spread. Reduced infection length gives less time for transmissibility.
So even if you can still transmit the virus while vaccinated, there is value in reducing the amount of time you’re infectious and the amount of viral load you’re spreading into the air.
It’s not a binary thing, despite what some are trying to suggest.
> Furthermore, the vaccines don't prevent transmission,
They do prevent transmission, since they make people less likely to be infected, and if you're not infected with the virus you won't transmit it. The vaccines are somewhat less effective at preventing people from being infected at all than they are at preventing hospitalization and death, but still significantly effective. [1]
> it was becoming more and more clear that the only people who might benefit from the shots were those taking them
Do you have any evidence at all of that? AFAIK, none exist.
What exists is some weak evidence the vaccine severely reduced the transmission of the virus. I've never seen any study strong enough to be proof, but then this is extremely hard to measure (either way it goes).
'the science' says you are wrong. the vaccines do not prevent spread. that is very very very clear in the data now, so stop spreading that nonsense
that assumption relied on at least 3 things being true:
#1 ) having lower symptoms from the vaccine would not encourage those shedding the virus but not being observably sick to go out and spread the disease (*hint this is probably a pretty bad assumption)
#2 ) the vaccine would reduce viral load
#3 ) a reduction of viral load would prevent you from spreading it to others
It turns out the vaccine does not lower viral load. and even though this has been shown to be medically true, you can see that in places like Isreal and Germany where the virus spreads pretty easily. hell, even in the US, you dont get nearly 1m cases a day without vaccinated people spreading it.
> The vaccine which doesn't prevent infection or transmission
It reduces the chances of transmission and reduces the effects of the virus when someone is infected. I have no idea why “it doesn’t stop all infections!” is presented as such a gotcha when that’s the way vaccines have always worked. Breakthrough cases always happen. That doesn’t mean they’re not worth having.
> My natural antibodies are doing just fine, thank you
On what basis? You said the vaccines are “seemingly” losing efficacy weekly. How do you know the same isn’t the case for natural antibodies?
>Now that it's clear vaccination doesn't prevent transmission
You seem to be assuming the answer to that is either true or false. Isn't it much more likely that vaccines prevent some transmission and the question is how much.
> In practice, we have always, always, always known that vaccination did not stop transmission
Since this is something people commonly write around here, I am truly curious to know what you read that lead you to believe this? It's weird how many people believe the vaccine is not effective in stopping transmission. It's not 100% effective, and how well it's working to prevent transmission is a moving target as the virus changes, but if you think the effectiveness number is zero percent, I would like to understand where you got that. I'm pretty sure the official numbers are still above ninety percent, even with Omicron.
(it is of course true as you hinted that the vaccinated have less severe cases and shed less virus, etc.)
>I feel this way about the vaccine. “95% effective at preventing infection” etc etc. I really believed it would stop transmission which we also know now is not true.
The messaging was always that it would reduce the severity of the infection, not that it would stop transmission.
> [..] vaccines do not prevent (and only slow) the spread of the virus, because as you said, that was always to be expected
They "slow" the spread of the virus by preventing infections. A breakthrough infection is not a slower infection, it is an infection that happens at the same speed (in fact, a little faster overall because it subsides more quickly). All the slowdown is via infections that do not happen, and were thus prevented.
> So you acknowledge that you falsely accused me of spreading misinformation.
Not in the least bit. You were definitely spreading misinformation earlier, all over this thread to be precise. Your misrepresentation of the CDC director's comments is a slightly less clear cut case, because you might reasonably claim to have just misunderstood her, but the other cases are pretty crystal.
> We still don't have any hard evidence that the vaccine stops transmission. It's possible that it keeps you from getting sick while being an asymptomatic spreader.
We absolutely do and such studies exist, and furthermore you can see a rapid decline in new cases in countries that have achieved high vaccine coverage, which would not have occurred if vaccines did not prevent onward transmission.
This is just a fallacy. Even measles vaccines have a breakthrough rate—cases are so low because there is not widespread community transmission.
Just because it's not reducing transmission to your taste doesn't mean it's not reducing transmission.
reply