Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

   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.

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..?  ????

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? ????

 

  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....????

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? ????

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...