Vaccinated people are less likely to spread Covid, new research finds

[placeholder]

This is a preliminary study. It's a preprint and hasn't yet been published in a peer reviewed journal. But it's based an data drawn from 100,000 patients infected with Covid-19. So that's a big study. The data comes from UK govt. databases. It compared how effective the Pfizer-BioNtech and Astra-Zeneca vaccines are at reducing transmission in the case of both the alpha and delta varients

 

"Both vaccines reduced transmission, although they were more effective against the alpha variant compared to the delta variant. When infected with the delta variant, a given contact was 65 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. With AstraZeneca, a given contact was 36 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated."

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-spread-covid-new-research-finds-n1280583

 

Here's a link to the original study on which the article was based:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v1

 

 

 

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

another nice earner “research” paper from the university of stating the bleeding obvious ! quantifies something already known in principle , like “running makes you tired”

[GrandPapillon]

yes it is reduced transmission, but it doesn't stop completely the virus from spreading

 

this thing is quite strong,

[sirineou]

As displayed in the daily  covid results 

 Covid Cases in Thailand Oct 3rd       10,814 

Covid cases by visitors                              14

 

[placeholder]

31 minutes ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

another nice earner “research” paper from the university of stating the bleeding obvious ! quantifies something already known in principle , like “running makes you tired”

Considering the widespread claims among vaccine denialists that vaccinations offer no protection against transmission of covid-19, it is a very timely article. And this information is extremely useful for epidemiologists in helpng them to make more accurate predictions.

Edited October 3, 2021 by placeholder

[Jeffr2]

18 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

yes it is reduced transmission, but it doesn't stop completely the virus from spreading

 

this thing is quite strong,

What's your point?  if it reduces the spread ,which keeps people from dying or ending up in the hospital ,it's good, right?  a no brainer.

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

   8 hours ago,  WhiteBuffaloATM said: 

another nice earner “research” paper from the university of stating the bleeding obvious ! quantifies something already known in principle , like “running makes you tired”

Considering the widespread claims among vaccine denialists that vaccinations offer no protection against transmission of covid-19, it is a very timely article. And this information is extremely useful for epidemiologists in helpng them to make more accurate predictions.

 

”claims” from utterly discredited anti- vaxx (or flat earh) loons can be rightly ignored by sensible folk.

specialist scientists will already have their necessary data from their own verified institute sources.

study is probably just another academic money grab so is likely not “very” or “ extremely” anything.

[GrandPapillon]

10 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

What's your point?  if it reduces the spread ,which keeps people from dying or ending up in the hospital ,it's good, right?  a no brainer.

the point it answers both sides of the arguments, the anti-vax think that reduction is not good enough to warrant being vaccinated, while some pro-vax have this strange idea that the spread stops with vaccination. Both sides are wrong.

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

GP: disingenuous posts again. “ both sides” bs again. no tational or scientific equivalence here.

only right and wrong. anti vaxxers are simply plain wrong.

they remind me of Flat Earthers or Creationist Loons denying mountains of scientific evidence against their moronic pseudo-scientific “ claims”. no rational person cares a damn what is believed ot claimed, only what can be PROVEN.

But there is “uncertainty” with Vax, Evolution, etc., they say….. NONSENSE.

Sufficient Evidence Exists Beyond ANY Reasonable Doubt….. oh but they are not reasonable are they ?

Earth Age is “disputed” they say, no it’s not . It’s agreed by ALL scientists that it’s between 4.6 or 4.7 billion years old. that fact is not a Dispute…… jeeeez.

[GrandPapillon]

16 minutes ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

GP: disingenuous posts again. “ both sides” bs again. no tational or scientific equivalence here.

only right and wrong. anti vaxxers are simply plain wrong.

they remind me of Flat Earthers or Creationist Loons denying mountains of scientific evidence against their moronic pseudo-scientific “ claims”. no rational person cares a damn what is believed ot claimed, only what can be PROVEN.

But there is “uncertainty” with Vax, Evolution, etc., they say….. NONSENSE.

Sufficient Evidence Exists Beyond ANY Reasonable Doubt….. oh but they are not reasonable are they ?

Earth Age is “disputed” they say, no it’s not . It’s agreed by ALL scientists that it’s between 4.6 or 4.7 billion years old. that fact is not a Dispute…… jeeeez.

I think you speak more like a "flat earther" than a "reasonable" person, things are not that binary, even in medical science

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

GP: disingenuous posts again. “ both sides” bs again. no tational or scientific equivalence here.

only right and wrong. anti vaxxers are simply plain wrong.

they remind me of Flat Earthers or Creationist Loons denying mountains of scientific evidence against their moronic pseudo-scientific “ claims”. no rational person cares a damn what is believed ot claimed, only what can be PROVEN.

But there is “uncertainty” with Vax, Evolution, etc., they say….. NONSENSE.

Sufficient Evidence Exists Beyond ANY Reasonable Doubt….. oh but they are not reasonable are they ?

Earth Age is “disputed” they say, no it’s not . It’s agreed by ALL scientists that it’s between 4.6 or 4.7 billion years old. that fact is not a Dispute…… jeeeez.

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

GP: certain outspoken yet irrational people (wrongly) expect to be treated “with respect” ,

as an “equal” , when spouting complete danherous nonsense. I will not be complicit in that. 

they are fools and nowhere near by equal in intellect or rationality.

calling out such nonsense or being endlessly tolerant of it is not “being reasonable” it’s Cowardice.

[transam]

9 minutes ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

GP: disingenuous posts again. “ both sides” bs again. no tational or scientific equivalence here.

only right and wrong. anti vaxxers are simply plain wrong.

they remind me of Flat Earthers or Creationist Loons denying mountains of scientific evidence against their moronic pseudo-scientific “ claims”. no rational person cares a damn what is believed ot claimed, only what can be PROVEN.

But there is “uncertainty” with Vax, Evolution, etc., they say….. NONSENSE.

Sufficient Evidence Exists Beyond ANY Reasonable Doubt….. oh but they are not reasonable are they ?

Earth Age is “disputed” they say, no it’s not . It’s agreed by ALL scientists that it’s between 4.6 or 4.7 billion years old. that fact is not a Dispute…… jeeeez.

Would you rather get info from a tabloid, or the bloke who knows everything about everything down the pub..?

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

GP: disingenuous posts again. “ both sides” bs again. no tational or scientific equivalence here.

only right and wrong. anti vaxxers are simply plain wrong.

they remind me of Flat Earthers or Creationist Loons denying mountains of scientific evidence against their moronic pseudo-scientific “ claims”. no rational person cares a damn what is believed ot claimed, only what can be PROVEN.

But there is “uncertainty” with Vax, Evolution, etc., they say….. NONSENSE.

Sufficient Evidence Exists Beyond ANY Reasonable Doubt….. oh but they are not reasonable are they ?

Earth Age is “disputed” they say, no it’s not . It’s agreed by ALL scientists that it’s between 4.6 or 4.7 billion years old. that fact is not a Dispute…… jeeeez.

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

transam: difficult I know but do try to process and understand posts before foring off replies which have no obvious connection…..”tabloids” and “ bloke down the pub” making zero sense here… is that somehow “ clever” then ?

[transam]

1 minute ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

transam: difficult I know but do try to process and understand posts before foring off replies which have no obvious connection…..”tabloids” and “ bloke down the pub” making zero sense here… is that somehow “ clever” then ?

Dunno chum, you tell me. 

 

Sorry if you don't like my input, and speak as I find.

You keep posting.... "Jeeez",

what's that all about..?  ????

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

aint no chum. wont be explaining anything.  certain folk here having insufficient capacity….

and rank bad attitudes….they fail to “find” anything of value….. not understanding simple factual or logicalstatements …..

 

constant little “throwaway” trolling soundbites…… in response to serious comments..

posting gratuitous insults instead of intelligence …. right, get it now… attack the messemger…

unable to address subject……not normally down in that sewer……

since I’m asked, no,  its far from “clever”, just moronic playground stuff….. embarassing actually.

 

some people here care nothing for their own reputations ….or those of others……

only as expected from certain discredited members though…….

[GrandPapillon]

37 minutes ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

Earth Age is “disputed” they say, no it’s not . It’s agreed by ALL scientists that it’s between 4.6 or 4.7 billion years old. that fact is not a Dispute…… jeeeez.

what happens if we find out later than the real age of earth is 7b or 9b years old? there is still no absolute answer on the age of universe, we think now it's 100 times more than we originally thought (45 billions years) ????

 

your 4.6b years fact suddenly doesn't look like fact, much like the "eathers" 5000 years old claim ????

 

see my point? ????

 

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

GP:  NO, you have no reasonable point. incredible you cant see that and just dig yourself in deeper……..

 

whilst its true that science is constantly advancing and therefore naturally refining its findings, that by no means permits the 4.7 to “suddenly” become 45…… although yes it might become 4.5 or 4.8 based on new technologies aging the earths rocks more precisely .

 

However, this is quite UNLIKE the unyielding dogmatic Creationists whose non- science bible story based “belief” of 4400 years old has NEVER changed…… you DO see the difference here between Fact and Fiction right….. maybe not then…..

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, transam said:

Would you rather get info from a tabloid, or the bloke who knows everything about everything down the pub..?

Are those your only 2 sources of information?

[transam]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Are those your only 2 sources of information?

Well yeh, every day at about 6pm...????

[transam]

1 hour ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

aint no chum. wont be explaining anything.  certain folk here having insufficient capacity….

and rank bad attitudes….they fail to “find” anything of value….. not understanding simple factual or logicalstatements …..

 

constant little “throwaway” trolling soundbites…… in response to serious comments..

posting gratuitous insults instead of intelligence …. right, get it now… attack the messemger…

unable to address subject……not normally down in that sewer……

since I’m asked, no,  its far from “clever”, just moronic playground stuff….. embarassing actually.

 

some people here care nothing for their own reputations ….or those of others……

only as expected from certain discredited members though…….

How true....????

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

what happens if we find out later than the real age of earth is 7b or 9b years old? there is still no absolute answer on the age of universe, we think now it's 100 times more than we originally thought (45 billions years) ????

 

your 4.6b years fact suddenly doesn't look like fact, much like the "eathers" 5000 years old claim ????

 

see my point? ????

 

This is the argument that because scientific understanding is continually improving it can never be right.

 

It’s utter nonsense.

 

Einstein has improved Newtonian physics but if you jump off a tall building Newtonian physics still says exactly how hard you’ll hit the ground.

 

 

 

 

[Salerno]

7 hours ago, transam said:

Would you rather get info from a tabloid, or the bloke who knows everything about everything down the pub..?

Before anyone can answer that truthfully more data is required ... is the pub selling alcohol?

[GrandPapillon]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This is the argument that because scientific understanding is continually improving it can never be right.

 

It’s utter nonsense.

 

Einstein has improved Newtonian physics but if you jump off a tall building Newtonian physics still says exactly how hard you’ll hit the ground.

 

 

 

 

and again you are missing the point ????

 

the point was that you can't claim something to be absolutely true at any point in time,

 

that's religious belief, not modern science :)

[cdemundo]

20 hours ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

another nice earner “research” paper from the university of stating the bleeding obvious ! quantifies something already known in principle , like “running makes you tired”

You are right but anti-vaxxers are consistently saying "The vaccine doesn't stop you from being contagious" ignoring the fact that it greatly reduces your chances of transmitting the disease.

So it seems worthwhile to get this out there.

[ozimoron]

9 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

the point it answers both sides of the arguments, the anti-vax think that reduction is not good enough to warrant being vaccinated, while some pro-vax have this strange idea that the spread stops with vaccination. Both sides are wrong.

That's flat out false. Vaccines do stop the virus from spreading. This has been pointed out to you numerous times but you persist in lying about this.

 

23 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

the point was that you can't claim something to be absolutely true at any point in time,

That it's not 100% effective doesn't mean that it's not effective.

[cdemundo]

 

10 hours ago, transam said:

the bloke who knows everything about everything down the pub..?

 

That bloke is on TVF now.

 

 

[placeholder]

29 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

but it doesn't stop it, you can even ask Pfizer about it  ????

 

god, no wonder the anti-vaxx are getting paranoid, with false statements like these, you are not helping the cause for getting vaccinated. You have to tell the truth, period, and the truth is that it doesn't stop the spreading.

 

Like I said before, I got DELTA 1 month ago and I am fully vaccinated and I infected a few people in the process.

 

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

That's flat out false. Vaccines do stop the virus from spreading. This has been pointed out to you numerous times but you persist in lying about this.

 

That it's not 100% effective doesn't mean that it's not effective.

It's clear the ozimoron addressed this in the second part of his comment that you for some reason, left out in your reply.

[GrandPapillon]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

It's clear the ozimoron addressed this in the second part of his comment that you for some reason, left out in your reply.

I think you need to understand semantics first, obviously your definition of "stop" is not the same as mine ????

 

stop doesn't mean reduce, but maybe you speak a different language ????

 

for example: stop water from running doesn't mean water is still running ????

 

got it? comprende? ????