People who are fully vaccinated against covid-19 are far less likely to infect others

[Jeffr2]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59497462

Covid Omicron: Time to consider mandatory jabs, EU chief says

[KhunLA]

https://quebecherald.com/index.php/2021/12/01/mass-vaccination-fails-to-halt-covid-transmission-rates-study/

Mass vaccination fails to halt Covid transmission rates – study

"Successful vaccine rollouts have failed to stop Covid transmission, with new data showing the prevalence of the virus increasing in fully jabbed individuals, according to a medical study in The Lancet.

 

Examining new infections in Germany, researchers found that the rate of cases among fully vaccinated individuals aged 60 and older has risen from 16.9% in July to 58.9% in October.

 

Offering a clear assessment that fully vaccinated people are increasingly becoming the source of Covid transmission, the study identified a similar situation in the UK. 

[blackprince]

14 hours ago, i84teen said:

You and the rest are wrong as usual. Viral loads are similar in both vaxxed and normal people.

 

The peak viral load is determined by the viral load coming in, so it's to be expected that there's no difference between vaxxed and un-vaxxed. However, the key issue is viral load decline, which by your own link is better for vaxxed, as expected. Nevertheless, a good fact based link, thanks.

 

"Fully vaccinated individuals with delta variant infection had a faster (posterior probability >0·84) mean rate of viral load decline (0·95 log₁₀ copies per mL per day) than did unvaccinated individuals with pre-alpha (0·69), alpha (0·82), or delta (0·79) variant infections."

[blackprince]

30 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Offering a clear assessment that fully vaccinated people are increasingly becoming the source of Covid transmission, the study identified a similar situation in the UK. 

I didn't have the time to read your link this morning, but the reason why the vaxxed are increasingly the source of transmission is because the vaxxed are an increasing proportion of the population, especially in the UK where vaxx acceptance and vaxx rates are among the highest in the world.

 

The viral load of the vaxxed is also lower (as per my quote from the lancet above). So the transmitted infection is weaker.

 

As you know, it's never been claimed that vaxx eliminates the virus or virus transmission. It has long been stated though that a vaxx rate of c80% of the population is necessary for "herd immunity".

 

The other thing about the UK is that as soon as people got vaxxed many of them stopped all sorts of sensible preventative measures, like masks in crowded places and distancing. "Mad dogs and Englishmen ...etc".

Edited December 2, 2021 by blackprince

[blackprince]

Lack of vaccination is one problem, no doubt, but in the UK the problem is more to do with complacency among the vaccinated. They seem to think that vaccination makes them 100% immune. Some of the photos of overcrowding in mass events with no masks are truly mind-blowing.

 

I'm double vaxxed, I wear masks with everyone except family. And I keep my distance.

 

Nearly a year ago I got a terrible respiratory problem. For a long time I thought I must have been the first Thailand covid case, then a few months later I bumped into a farang neighbour who told me he had had pneumonia last Christmas. The penny dropped - I must have caught pneumonia from him in Tesco from a 5 minute conversation without masks just before covid became world news.

 

 

 

 

[Scott]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

https://quebecherald.com/index.php/2021/12/01/mass-vaccination-fails-to-halt-covid-transmission-rates-study/

Mass vaccination fails to halt Covid transmission rates – study

"Successful vaccine rollouts have failed to stop Covid transmission, with new data showing the prevalence of the virus increasing in fully jabbed individuals, according to a medical study in The Lancet.

 

Examining new infections in Germany, researchers found that the rate of cases among fully vaccinated individuals aged 60 and older has risen from 16.9% in July to 58.9% in October.

 

Offering a clear assessment that fully vaccinated people are increasingly becoming the source of Covid transmission, the study identified a similar situation in the UK. 

This is a poorly and probably biased look at some statistics.  There is no study, per se and the data may well not be representative.  The author has a bit of a checkered background in supporting anti-vax causes.   He has written for the Brownstone Institute, a right-wing, factually mixed organization.  

I'd suggest waiting for a study with a much larger sample size and much clearer presentation of information.   When comparing groups, we don't really get a clear idea if the groups are comparable on any other metric than vaccinated or unvaccinated.   That would be the primary metric, but other factors can influence the outcome. 

 

https://brownstone.org/articles/this-is-not-a-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated/

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brownstone-institute-bias/

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

You get the feeling that certain people just love all this....the new 'variant' has them rubbing their little hands. The thought of mandatory jabs and being able to punish the naughty and bring down even stricter controls has them salivating. I wonder, if the state sanctioned scientists declared Covid over tomorrow.....what kind of withdrawal symptoms they would have? I think it will be hard for some to let go.....Mask wearing and scurrying off in fear of others has been drilled so much into peoples heads I fear its here to stay, a long while after this is all over.

No...you get the feeling. And that's all it is. A feeling.  No evidence. Just scurrilous speculative claptrap. Funny, coming from someone who regularly maintains that the majority public response to covid is not rationally based.

[248900_1469958220]

 

Lets hope this new variant is more transmissible and less severe...right? No more vaccines, no more masks, no more social distancing , no need for QR codes or vaccine passports!!...then you and I can get together and breath in each others faces over an ice cold beer. Wouldnt that be nice? Looking forward to it 

Edited December 2, 2021 by onthedarkside
quote of hidden post removed

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

 

Lets hope this new variant is more transmissible and less severe...right? No more vaccines, no more masks, no more social distancing , no need for QR codes or vaccine passports!!...then you and I can get together and breath in each others faces over an ice cold beer. Wouldnt that be nice? Looking forward to it 

 

But, given your view of the covid situation, how would such knowledge not be suppressed by Big Pharma and govt scientists?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

https://quebecherald.com/index.php/2021/12/01/mass-vaccination-fails-to-halt-covid-transmission-rates-study/

Mass vaccination fails to halt Covid transmission rates – study

"Successful vaccine rollouts have failed to stop Covid transmission, with new data showing the prevalence of the virus increasing in fully jabbed individuals, according to a medical study in The Lancet.

 

Examining new infections in Germany, researchers found that the rate of cases among fully vaccinated individuals aged 60 and older has risen from 16.9% in July to 58.9% in October.

 

Offering a clear assessment that fully vaccinated people are increasingly becoming the source of Covid transmission, the study identified a similar situation in the UK. 

It’s a letter (opinion).

 

 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s a letter (opinion).

 

 

Right, So the fact that the Lancet is a peer-reviewed journal is not relevant to the content of the letter.

[Jeffr2]

52 minutes ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

You get the feeling that certain people just love all this....the new 'variant' has them rubbing their little hands. The thought of mandatory jabs and being able to punish the naughty and bring down even stricter controls has them salivating. I wonder, if the state sanctioned scientists declared Covid over tomorrow.....what kind of withdrawal symptoms they would have? I think it will be hard for some to let go.....Mask wearing and scurrying off in fear of others has been drilled so much into peoples heads I fear its here to stay, a long while after this is all over.

Actually, it's quite the opposite.  Covid deniers are in full swing.  As are anti vaxxers.  Gives them something to put up misinformation about.

 

As for us vaccinated folk?  We're ready for this to be over and get on with our lives.  The only thing stopping us are the above people.

[Jeffr2]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Right, So the fact that the Lancet is a peer-reviewed journal is not relevant to the content of the letter.

It doesn't have to be peer reviewed to be published in the Lancet.  Lots of dodgy articles are up there.

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Right, So the fact that the Lancet is a peer-reviewed journal is not relevant to the content of the letter.

Peer reviewed and published research is one thing.

 

A letter is opinion.

[blackprince]

There's such a lot of national variation, even among our home countries.

 

For example in the UK it's inaccurate to say that the unvaccinated are the problem, because "almost nine in 10 of those aged 12 or over having had a single jab and eight in 10 having had a second, the country is now running a booster campaign." (BBC)

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833

 

The UK surge has 2 main causes - the return to school, and the complacency among the vaccinated who throw caution to the wind.

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/health/boardmasters-cornwall-music-surf-festival-superspreader-event-4700-covid-cases-1164592

 

[placeholder]

29 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Peer reviewed and published research is one thing.

 

A letter is opinion.

Actually I was agreeing with you. Or meant to. But I can see how my comment would most likely be construed differently

[onthedarkside]

Multiple posts have been removed, along with replies to them, falling broadly into two categories. 1. a comment on moderation post and ensuing replies. 2. an off-topic diversion discussion on non-credible media outlets and fact-checking, and ensuing replies.

 

The topic here is: People who are fully vaccinated against covid-19 are far less likely to infect others

[KhunLA]

8 hours ago, Scott said:

This is a poorly and probably biased look at some statistics.  There is no study, per se and the data may well not be representative.  The author has a bit of a checkered background in supporting anti-vax causes.   He has written for the Brownstone Institute, a right-wing, factually mixed organization.  

I'd suggest waiting for a study with a much larger sample size and much clearer presentation of information.   When comparing groups, we don't really get a clear idea if the groups are comparable on any other metric than vaccinated or unvaccinated.   That would be the primary metric, but other factors can influence the outcome. 

 

https://brownstone.org/articles/this-is-not-a-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated/

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brownstone-institute-bias/

Haven't a clue or care about the author / messenger, but the 'research'  was linked, and that's where the actually info was located.

[ozimoron]

9 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Haven't a clue or care about the author / messenger, but the 'research'  was linked, and that's where the actually info was located.

I guess it must have been fake news.

[KhunLA]

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I guess it must have been fake news.

Yea, had to be fake if put out by The Lancet  ????

 

Googled before posting:  "The Lancet - Peer-reviewed journal

Description:  The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest and best-known general medical journals."

Edited December 2, 2021 by KhunLA

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Yea, had to be fake if put out by The Lancet  ????

 

Googled before posting:  "The Lancet - Peer-reviewed journal

Description:  The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest and best-known general medical journals."

Ah, I got the wrong link, sorry. That was the link that referred specifically to household members in close proximity over time if I recall rightly.

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Yea, had to be fake if put out by The Lancet  ????

 

Googled before posting:  "The Lancet - Peer-reviewed journal

Description:  The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest and best-known general medical journals."

Just because it's up on Lancet doesn't mean it's credible nor peer-reviewed.

[blackprince]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Yea, had to be fake if put out by The Lancet  ????

 

Googled before posting:  "The Lancet - Peer-reviewed journal

The Lancet is certainly the most well known and prestigious specialist journal (to me anyway, has been for decades).

 

But I did notice earlier that in one post a Lancet letter had been quoted rather than a research article. I can't remember who quoted the letter, as there have been a few Lancet quotes. But it's water under the bridge now anyway.

[KhunLA]

2 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Just because it's up on Lancet doesn't mean it's credible nor peer-reviewed.

With that thinking, then absolutely nothing is credible.  Which is where I usually start, then pick things apart with what I learned before information was completely controlled, and throw in a little common sense, and that has served me well.

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

With that thinking, then absolutely nothing is credible.  Which is where I usually start, then pick things apart with what I learned before information was completely controlled, and throw in a little common sense, and that has served me well.

In one sentence you produce a classic non sequiter and in the next you claim you use common sense. One questionable letter in the Lancet hardly means the entire trove of research is not credible, does it? You must surely realize that it's a well regarded journal? However, what's in contention here is not a peer researched article so much as just a letter.

Edited December 2, 2021 by ozimoron

[Scott]

The Lancet is a credible scientific, medical journal.  It, like many journals, will publish letters and abstracts from reasonably respected researchers.  The material is not meant to be a definitive statement of fact but to give other researchers a chance to more fully study and flesh out what is happening.   

 

I have questions about the voracity of the claims but that said, it does not mean it is not accurate.  I am skeptical but will wait for further research.  

[Scott]

Perhaps this may shed some light on the report:

 

Fact-check: Are vaccinated people dying at a faster rate than unvaccinated people?

Viral Facebook post: COVID-19 death rates in England are higher among vaccinated people than unvaccinated.

PolitiFact's ruling: False

Here's why: Referencing one chart in a 30-page report while omitting important context, bloggers falsely claimed in an article that COVID-19 death rates in England are much higher among vaccinated people than unvaccinated.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-vaccinated-people-dying-143012895.html

 

And here is a link to the Surveillance Report:  

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1032859/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_45.pdf

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59497462

Covid Omicron: Time to consider mandatory jabs, EU chief says

By all means if a majority of the population agree, and that should be over 50% of the population, including children ( if they are also going to be forcibly injected ), else it's just dictatorship IMO and the start, IMO, of a nasty turn of politics which would lead to serious unintended consequences.

[Jeffr2]

7 hours ago, KhunLA said:

With that thinking, then absolutely nothing is credible.  Which is where I usually start, then pick things apart with what I learned before information was completely controlled, and throw in a little common sense, and that has served me well.

Seems you don't understand how the Lancet works.  Just cherry picking articles that support your anti-vax view.

 

You need to dig deeper into the articles, not just the headlines.

[Jeffr2]

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

By all means if a majority of the population agree, and that should be over 50% of the population, including children ( if they are also going to be forcibly injected ), else it's just dictatorship IMO and the start, IMO, of a nasty turn of politics which would lead to serious unintended consequences.

Most polls show a majority of people support vaccine mandates. Makes sense as a majority of people in most countries are vaccinated.  Sadly, a few nutters are holding out.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/14/guardian-essential-poll-majority-of-australians-support-vaccine-mandates

Guardian Essential poll: majority of Australians support vaccine mandates