ozimoron

Complete rubbish, the mRNA research has been going on for over a decade. What people really do understand is how dangerous covid is. I'm getting really sick of people spruiking misinformation.

The point you are trying to make is that vaccinations are fruitless and not stopping the infections. The reality is that the delta variant is spreading fast. That is not a reflection on vaccinations and their effectiveness. The virus IS a killer. Only the vaccines are preventing mass horror as reflected in the numbers and only because 80% are vaccinated. You are trying to spin the stats but you are just spreading misinformation.

From the same article Just four people have died in the past 28 days, all of whom were unvaccinated, according to the health ministry. “Over the last 28 days, the percentage of local cases who were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms is 98.1%. Of the 114 cases who required oxygen supplementation, 56 were not fully vaccinated and 58 were fully vaccinated. Of the eight who had been in the ICU, five were not fully vaccinated and three were fully vaccinated,”

https://www.axios.com/axios-ipsos-poll-covid-vaccine-mandates-biden-c0b7af63-6de0-4ec2-82bf-fb85e3e021ea.html

Here's what Chaweng looked like when it was the world's best island. Taken in December, 1979.

Some of those guys weren't actual scientists. They were also all very long ago, do you have any more recent examples? You'll find that a fundamental of ALL science, is repeatable experiments or checkable data.

What would the alternative look like?

OK, I completely disagree. What I asked was for you to explain your logic and I disagreed with your premise. Given that vaccinated people are both less likely to contract or transmit the virus than unvaccinated people I don't see how your argument is possible.

I won't argue the point, you may well be correct but there is conflicting data “It appears from the literature that natural infection provides immunity, but that immunity is seemingly not as strong and may not be as long lasting as that provided by the vaccine,” Alfred Sommer, dean emeritus of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health tells The BMJ. https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101

Well, at best there appears to be conflicting data, however, "The study, published online but not yet peer reviewed"

Not true. All approved vaccines have shown the ability to induce neutralizing antibody titers comparable to those which are elicited by natural infection, or higher. These vaccines provide very high levels of protection against moderate to severe COVID-19. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210810/Natural-vs-vaccine-induced-COVID-19-immunity.aspx

Evidently not. What I get is that you are suggesting that vaccinated people present a greater risk to others than unvaccinated people. Is that what you are saying or not?

That's patently untrue. Please explain why you believe that.

Ao Sane. Memories from the early 80's

For one thing, they are much less likely to transmit the virus. Furthermore, most people who get the virus are asymptomatic. So, given vaccinated people with the virus and 1,000 unvaccinated people with the virus I think it's fair to say the vaccinated are less likely to be spreading the virus.

Let me rephrase that. They got infected and took ivermectin and happened not to die from the ivermectin or the virus. That's a world away from concluding that the ivermectin was an effective treatment.

Is he permitted to quote any of the plethora of actual qualified people who say the same thing?

I suppose you have reason to believe that? Or do you want to qualify what you wrote? What atheists don't understand is why the religious necessarily need to reject science. In fact, most don't. Do you see Thais rejecting science? It seems to be a product of a particular form of religion found mainly in the southern US. Again, I fail to understand the nexus between religion and the rejection of science. I've certainly never seen that doctrine taught in any church. It's certainly not in the Bible. It's very unfortunate that a common belief among the religious is that they somehow have a right to project their beliefs (as opposed to their faith) upon other people. Just apart from spreading the virus by refusal to get vaccinated, increasing the likelihood of virus mutations due to increased infections and the very real problem of PTSD among medical staff having to deal with the horror.

Yes. No person can claim that their religious faith prevents them from having the vaccine. Unfortunately, some churches are very anti science but that's nothing to do with their religion. Those who claim religious faith prevents them from having vaccinations are just threading the needle.

The vaccine reduces transmission. Mutations are directly proportionate to the number of transmissions. Therefore, the vaccine reduces the likelihood of mutations.

It is a vaccine, not an immunization.

OK, so you accept that the vaccinations do help reduce transmission and you were not trying to suggest otherwise?

what do you think the word "only" in your sentence actually means? Your implied meaning is both clear and wrong.

You absolutely did. You said the vaccines were "ONLY" to prevent death and serious hospitalization.

Perhaps you? You seem to of the opinion that the vaccines don't reduce transmission by a significant mount. False