ThLT

You have no point. ???? Every single case of a vaccinated person transmitting COVID will be due to a breakthrough infection. There can be no transmission from a vaccinated person without a breakthrough infection, by definition. To say the CDC director meant something else is... disingenuous and not valid. And, exactly, not only do vaccines not prevent transmission, like the CDC director says, but vaccines also don't effectively protect against getting infected, even if you're vaccinated (i.e. breakthrough infection). You're only strengthening my point. ????

Changing the point being discussed? Yes, vaccines are good at protecting health. I've said that multiple times. However, what we've been discussing—at least, what I've been discussing—is that they aren't effective at preventing transmission. Which even the director of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky, said herself a few weeks ago: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-vaccines-cant-prevent-transmission-anymore/ar-AASDndg (But I guess you'll find a way to change the point being made, yet again, to avoid acknowledging what both the Lancet study and even the CDC confirms.)

Here is the conclusion of the Lancet study: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext I've been saying for the past few pages that vaccines are effective at protecting health, but ineffective at reducing transmission—with you somehow repeatedly denying this is the case. Clearly, you're incorrect.

No. You're making stuff up. Things I didn't say. And I did say they are good at protecting against death and serious illness.

Regardless of what you say, or twist things around by using misleading ways of re-expressing the study results to fit your liking (ironically, similarly to what anti-vaxxers do), like the study results say: - If being unvaccinated means 38% will get infected. - And being vaccinated means 25% will get infected. Yes, that's a 1.5x improvement. It's mathematically correct to say that. However, that's still an awful performance of a vaccine for protecting against transmission/infection. And yes, a vaccine doesn't require to fully protect against transmission/infection... but it's still a fact that the current vaccines are awful for protecting against transmission/infection. But you'll probably conjure up some answer to say they're absolutely awesome at protecting against transmission/infection? Or pointlessly re-state that vaccines don't require to protect against transmission/infection, right?

They brought meds (like.... Tylenol?), while you are at home? You consider that "COVID treatment"? If you need hospital care for COVID, it won't be free. Especially if you end up in the ICU. Thai people aren't paying for expats' and tourists' COVID hospital bill. Why do you think COVID insurance is a requirement for foreigners? Not free.

???????????? You said: "I said 1.5x, and you are the one who keeps going on about 150%." For an engineer who apparently studied mathematics, you're not too good at mathematics. ???? 1.5x and 150% are the exact same thing. Saying the original study says 25% infection of vaccinated and 38% for unvaccinated—and posting the direct link to the study almost every single time is misleading? No, saying something like "it's 1.5x better!" is misleading. Exactly like saying "I'm 2x richer than you, since you have a dollar and I have two!" Wrong, yet again. ???? Taxes don't pay for COVID care for foreigners. Insurance does.

... says the guy who didn't read the thread. ????

Follow/read the thread

Show me the data on that one thanks. Also waiting for numbers for your claim. The Lancet study I posted shows that: 25% of vaccinated got infected, in contrast to 38% of unvaccinated.

If you want to be required to get boosted every 9 months, feel free to do so. Don't expect everyone to follow along with you in your enthusiasm. And no, you're wrong, it's not free. It's paid for using taxes paid by Thai people.

It's maybe informative for you and me. But people who have no understanding of statistics are surprised when they see a big number, or when someone says "it's 150% more effective." The reality is that the study says: 25% of vaccinated got infected, and 38% of unvaccinated got infected. Also, if you don't mention the data of which that percentage is based on, it is misleading and disingenuous.

Serious question: do you actually want to have to get a booster shot every 9 months? People complain about doing 90-day reporting at immigration. ???? Are you actually cheering for this?

France is one of the most draconian countries for restrictions. According to you, that's "international standards" and that this "will probably prevail"? Norway, Denmark lift most pandemic restrictions Oh, and Thailand... : Covid to be declared endemic by year's end in Thailand

For a third time now, you keep mixing up the topic of this thread (what I'm talking about), and what you think I'm talking about. It is significant, in the context of ending the pandemic, and on a national scale. However, infection of 25% vs 38% isn't significant to justify a phobia of unvaccinated people, which is what this thread is about. Thread: "Are we just going to have to live with unvaccinated people across Thailand?" And the old expectation from 2020 of "vaccines being effective at preventing infection" is false, and an expectation that didn't materialize.

You haven't misled me. I'm pointing out that you're being misleading, by saying "it's 150% more effective!"

Again, you're arguing with me about something I'm not talking about. Sure. And? It's still 38% infection for unvaccinated and 25% for vaccinated. No, what is misleading is using a proportion of a proportion, and not describing the initial proportion that this proportion is based on. Exactly like you did. Saying "but that's 152% better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" like you did, doesn't change the fact that, as described in the Lancet study, the infections were 38% for unvaccinated and 25% for vaccinated.

And if everyone were vaccinated, only vaccinated people would be giving COVID to vaccinated people... No more scapegoats. Vaccinated people would need to be banned from vaccinated people!! ???? ???? Pro or anti-vaccine... this is 100% all about finding a scapegoat.

I'm pro-vaccine, and I've already agreed with severity and risk of death. Not what I'm talking about.

Here was your claim: You took the 25% and 38% percentages, and made a second proportion. To state a 152% percentage, without considering what that proportion represents, is meaningless. I prefer what is stated in the study, that: 25% of vaccinated were infected, and 38% unvaccinated were infected. My point is that you saying that "it's a 152% difference!!!" is misleading. Sure. But you're arguing with me about something I'm not talking about. I'm saying vaccines aren't that protective against infection. If 25% of vaccinated people get infected, and 38% who are unvaccinated get infected... vaccines aren't that much more effective at protecting against infection.

I thought even a high school student would understand the "$0.01 vs. $0.02 being 200% richer" example...

Yes, all those things you listed are what I would consider "extreme." You're highly authoritarian and troubling remarks, about putting unvaccinated people with criminals and on persecutory lists, would also fall under those same categories.

Dude, I've literally studied statistics in college. It's a 13% difference. You saying "But but but.... but that 13% is 52% more!" means nothing. If I have $0.01 in my pockets.... and you have $0.02... sure, you have 200% more than me, but we're both broke!!!

Good, then you should be able to recognize the disingenuousness of presenting a proportion without taking into consideration what that proportion is based on? You completely ignored that point I'm making. Saying there is a "13% difference in protection against infection"... AND Saying "vaccines protect more against infection by more than 150%," while correct, statistically disingenuous. Sure. But I'm refuting the claim that vaccines protect against infection. If 25% of vaccinated get infected, and 38% for unvaccinated... vaccines don't really protect that much against infection.

Fact is, the Lancet study says 25% infection for vaccinated, 38% for unvaccinated. That's only 13% more protection than being unvaccinated. Saying "yeah, but but but... that' 152% morrrrrreeeeee!!!!" doesn't change the fact that that 152% more is only a 13% difference in protection of infection.