Most recent cases and deaths of Covid-19 are unvaccinated.

[Sargonski]

This is an example of prevarication, ie, lying using facts to
mislead. Kennedy trots out this factoid (a dubious fact) to
give the impression that vaccines lack efficacy. He ignores
facts about vaccines reducing the risk of severity of Covid 19,
there by reducing mortality, hospitalizations, & Long Covid.
Why ignore vaccine benefits?
To manipulate gullible people who fear vaccines & the federal
government into supporting his political ambitions.

As for not reducing transmissibility, that's an unsupported
claim. He can likely cite a result from some limited study,
but transmissibility is a function of many things outside of
narrowly focused research, eg, the vaccinated population
being infectious for shorter duration, fewer infected people
in hospitals.

Also, there is evidence that vaccines reduce transmission.
Rates depends upon which vaccine & which Covid variant.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext

Preventing transmission never required for COVID vaccines’ initial approval; Pfizer vax did reduce transmission of early variants

Social media users are circulating video clips of testimony by a Pfizer executive, who is said to “admit” that the company and its partner BioNTech did not test whether their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine reduced virus transmission prior to rolling it out – which is something the companies were...

www.reuters.com

1) Preventing Transmission is a primary goal of a Vax .. The main justification for violation of Essential liberty was the prevention of transmission .. had to have a vax pass in many places. .. so what on earth are you talking about? As far as Kennedy .. I don't care what he says .. was just pointing out that his claim about Prevention of Transmission turned out to be correct.

2) "Vaccines reduce transmission" is a strange comment.. a real vaccine prevents transmission .. but we are not talking about Vaccines in General .. but the mRNA VAx .. which did not prevent transmission = no significant reduction. A slight reduction doesn't help to slow or stop transmission in any significant way .. and certainly does not get the number below a transmission rate of 1 .. which you need to stop transmission. So unfortunately .. someone is misrepresenting the truth .. "The Evidence" such as the London Study .. the Massachussets outbreak .. and the rate at which Omicron went through the population in general .. Showed that the Vax was very terrible at Transmission reduction. In my region .. the Omnicron wave infected 60% of the population in 6 weeks .. super high transmission rate .. during a normal flue season 5-20% are infected over the whole Year.

3) Correct that the transmission rate was different for different mutations Alpha Delta Omicron .. following the normal trent of getting more contageous but less toxic. That there is some insignificant reduction that varies from one strain to the next is thus a given .. but is an a statistically insignificant reduction -- does not prevent the spread in any significant way. If you want that . look to Australia and New Zealand who did the Full Lockdown .. that is the only thing that prevented the spead .. reduced the number to below 1 - throughout this pandemic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

back up your claim.

I did. I've given you sound arguments, graphic data, and a few links. Did you look at any of it? You commented on none of it.

If any of those claims were false, you could successfully refute them, but you can't. You can only dismiss them with a waive of the hand, unsupported claims of what is propaganda, morbidity data for vaccines that doesn't compare with the morbidity and mortality data for Covid infection in unvaccinated individuals, and irrelevant data about children.

It appears that you either don't understand or don't want to understand that that nothing you wrote in the quote section of this post refutes the claims I made previously that the vaccine reduced the transmission of the disease, reduced the viral load and the duration of infectivity in vaccinated people with Covid infections, saved lives, prevented hospitalizations, prevented many medical bankruptcies and the deaths of parent of minor children, as well as many cases of long Covid. Those evidenced claims still stand unaddressed by you.

 

[Revoltingest]

1) Preventing Transmission is a primary goal of a Vax ..

It's a useful goal, & achieved to an extent.
But it's not the only goal....at least for those
of us interested in guarding our health.

The main justification for violation of Essential liberty was the prevention of transmission .. had to have a vax pass in many places. .. so what on earth are you talking about? As far as Kennedy .. I don't care what he says .. was just pointing out that his claim about Prevention of Transmission turned out to be correct.

You've not shown that it doesn't prevent transmission.
And you missed the goal of reducing Covid 19 severity
because this avoided over-loading hospitals that were
already strained past their limits.

2) "Vaccines reduce transmission" is a strange comment.. a real vaccine prevents transmission .. but we are not talking about Vaccines in General .. but the mRNA VAx .. which did not prevent transmission = no significant reduction. A slight reduction doesn't help to slow or stop transmission in any significant way .. and certainly does not get the number below a transmission rate of 1 .. which you need to stop transmission. So unfortunately .. someone is misrepresenting the truth .. "The Evidence" such as the London Study .. the Massachussets outbreak .. and the rate at which Omicron went through the population in general .. Showed that the Vax was very terrible at Transmission reduction. In my region .. the Omnicron wave infected 60% of the population in 6 weeks .. super high transmission rate .. during a normal flue season 5-20% are infected over the whole Year.

3) Correct that the transmission rate was different for different mutations Alpha Delta Omicron .. following the normal trent of getting more contageous but less toxic. That there is some insignificant reduction that varies from one strain to the next is thus a given .. but is an a statistically insignificant reduction -- does not prevent the spread in any significant way. If you want that . look to Australia and New Zealand who did the Full Lockdown .. that is the only thing that prevented the spead .. reduced the number to below 1 - throughout this pandemic.

Why support a dishonest politician's efforts
to manipulate people to stop people being
vaccinated against diseases?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's a useful goal, & achieved to an extent.
But it's not the only goal....at least for those
of us interested in guarding our health.

You've not shown that it doesn't prevent transmission.
And you missed the goal of reducing Covid 19 severity
because this avoided over-loading hospitals that were
already strained past their limits.

I'm sure that by now you understand that you won't get a rebuttal to any of that. He's not interested in your argument or mine, just his. He won't consider these arguments nor address them. What he has done to date and can be expected to do henceforth is to deflect to irrelevancies about imperfect transmission rates and the good outcomes in unvaccinated children. I do not expect him to engage either of us.

I just left this on another thread. It applies here, too, and frankly, characterizes 90%+ of discussions between experienced critical thinkers and others. They simply don't understand or respect dialectic, which is pure engagement between two critical thinkers trying to resolve differences of opinion by cooperatively attempting to falsify one another's arguments as occurs in peer review or a courtroom trial until a plausible argument is made that cannot be successfully rebutted.

But we won't be doing that with people unfamiliar with or uninterested in the method, and the quicker we recognize that, the less time wasted in discussions that go nowhere:

​

If you choose to respond, remember that I am not interested in what you believe that's different from my beliefs, but why you think mine are wrong if in fact that's what you believe. That means that I need you to explain why any given claim in that paragraph is incorrect according to you. For example, if you think trees are conscious, that's a contradictory position to mine and you would need to explain how I am wrong about that and how you can know that.​

​

What has no value to or interest for me is just about any other kind of response you might post. When you tell me what you think and I disagree, I tell you what I think you wrote is wrong and why. That's dialectic, and nothing else furthers the discussion. If you don't engage what you read with rebuttal, it doesn't matter what else it is.​

​

You don't do that normally, and I'm not interested in making the same point more than once. Please rebut the above if you find a flaw there, or move on. Mere dissent without rebuttal is assumed but of no value in dialectic and represents the end of the process. It ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim, which right now is mine. If you attempt to falsify it, then we can discuss your argument. Just so that you understand, anything else is pointless and signals the end of this discussion for me.​

​

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sure that by now you understand that you won't get a rebuttal to any of that. He's not interested in your argument or mine, just his. He won't consider these arguments nor address them. What he has done to date and can be expected to do henceforth is to deflect to irrelevancies about imperfect transmission rates and the good outcomes in unvaccinated children. I do not expect him to engage either of us.

I have high hopes, & low expectations.
So when I'm in the mood, I try to help.

Sometimes I win, eg, recently convincing
a conspiracy nut I know to get vaccinated
against shingles. It's a small scale good,
but it could make a huge difference in his
life. (Shingles is terrible.)

 

[Sargonski]

1) Preventing Transmission is a primary goal of a Vax .. The main justification for violation of Essential liberty was the prevention of transmission .. had to have a vax pass in many places. .. so what on earth are you talking about? As far as Kennedy .. I don't care what he says .. was just pointing out that his claim about Prevention of Transmission turned out to be correct.

2) "Vaccines reduce transmission" is a strange comment.. a real vaccine prevents transmission .. but we are not talking about Vaccines in General .. but the mRNA VAx .. which did not prevent transmission = no significant reduction. A slight reduction doesn't help to slow or stop transmission in any significant way .. and certainly does not get the number below a transmission rate of 1 .. which you need to stop transmission. So unfortunately .. someone is misrepresenting the truth .. "The Evidence" such as the London Study .. the Massachussets outbreak .. and the rate at which Omicron went through the population in general .. Showed that the Vax was very terrible at Transmission reduction. In my region .. the Omnicron wave infected 60% of the population in 6 weeks .. super high transmission rate .. during a normal flue season 5-20% are infected over the whole Year.

3) Correct that the transmission rate was different for different mutations Alpha Delta Omicron .. following the normal trent of getting more contageous but less toxic. That there is some insignificant reduction that varies from one strain to the next is thus a given .. but is an a statistically insignificant reduction -- does not prevent the spread in any significant way. If you want that . look to Australia and New Zealand who did the Full Lockdown .. that is the only thing that prevented the spead .. reduced the number to below 1 - throughout this pandemic

 

[Sargonski]

I did. I've given you sound arguments, graphic data, and a few links. Did you look at any of it? You commented on none of it.

If any of those claims were false, you could successfully refute them, but you can't. You can only dismiss them with a waive of the hand, unsupported claims of what is propaganda, morbidity data for vaccines that doesn't compare with the morbidity and mortality data for Covid infection in unvaccinated individuals, and irrelevant data about children.

It appears that you either don't understand or don't want to understand that that nothing you wrote in the quote section of this post refutes the claims I made previously that the vaccine reduced the transmission of the disease, reduced the viral load and the duration of infectivity in vaccinated people with Covid infections, saved lives, prevented hospitalizations, prevented many medical bankruptcies and the deaths of parent of minor children, as well as many cases of long Covid. Those evidenced claims still stand unaddressed by you.

What a terrible strawman fallacy .. Never said death morbidity data for vax compares or doesn't compare with morbidity data for covid infection i the unvaxed. so who is the one not understanding - that the vax did not prevent transmission..

The number of Death healthy children is very relevant to a discussion of the risk of harm from meeting Covid Unvaxed vs Vaxed. Especially for that demographic.

Your claims about viral Load are nonsense .. Yes .. I realize we look at viral load --- .. as Kennedy did .. as a potential indicator of transmission .. you are still just guessing what might happen in the real world .. as oppose to a study of "What Happened" .. and what happened is the vax did not prevent transmission.

the phrase "reduced transmission" is nonsense .. it doesn't mean anything without quantification. The question is whether or not the reduction in transmission is significant. and it wasn't .. which we know by how fast the Virus spread in a population mostly vaxed.. there was no stopping the dreaded Omicron .. thats just the fact of what happened. Luckily .. Omicron was so weak that despite infecting huge numbers of people over 6 week cycle .. very few ended up in hospital because toxicity had decreased ..

"Covid injections saved lives - prevented hospitalizations" - once again this is a nonsense claim without quantification. I fully agree tht the Jab saved a few lives .. prevented some hospitalizations. What you have yet to understand .. is that this is only true for a small segment of the population .. but you are trying to generalize over the whole population .. hence the use of the term "Healthy Children" ..meaning generally not already at deaths door. .. severely immune compromized. .. and Yes .. the Jab Helps these folks .. But, the findings of analysis of this population . .have no relevance to the other 99.99%.

So Covid injections did not save the lives of any Children not in the 0.01 category .. because there were none to save. None meaning "No significant number"

Go find the number of healthy Children died .. should be simple .. .. one can very easily come up with the number of deaths broken down by age demographic. Don't take my word for it .. or the Gov't's word for it .. nor the various propaganda parroting institutions and media outlet . Propaganda which was horrible during the Pandemic .. Gov't out of control power hungry .. but that is another matter.

Don't listen to me .. go find out for yourself .. Tell us the number of (Healthy) dead children .. .. feel free to use nations other than the US for Stats .. in fact .. that would probably be preferrable .. more accurate in many cases but US will do.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Go find the number of healthy Children died .. should be simple .. .. one can very easily come up with the number of deaths broken down by age demographic. Don't take my word for it .. or the Gov't's word for it .. nor the various propaganda parroting institutions and media outlet . Propaganda which was horrible during the Pandemic .. Gov't out of control power hungry .. but that is another matter.

Don't listen to me .. go find out for yourself .. Tell us the number of (Healthy) dead children .. .. feel free to use nations other than the US for Stats .. in fact .. that would probably be preferrable .. more accurate in many cases but US will do.

Children may survive but they can pass COVID to their parent and grandparents, or to immune compromised people (including other children.)

 

[Revoltingest]

What a terrible strawman fallacy .. Never said death morbidity data for vax compares or doesn't compare with morbidity data for covid infection i the unvaxed. so who is the one not understanding - that the vax did not prevent transmission..

The number of Death healthy children is very relevant to a discussion of the risk of harm from meeting Covid Unvaxed vs Vaxed. Especially for that demographic.

Your claims about viral Load are nonsense .. Yes .. I realize we look at viral load --- .. as Kennedy did .. as a potential indicator of transmission .. you are still just guessing what might happen in the real world .. as oppose to a study of "What Happened" .. and what happened is the vax did not prevent transmission.

the phrase "reduced transmission" is nonsense .. it doesn't mean anything without quantification. The question is whether or not the reduction in transmission is significant. and it wasn't .. which we know by how fast the Virus spread in a population mostly vaxed.. there was no stopping the dreaded Omicron .. thats just the fact of what happened. Luckily .. Omicron was so weak that despite infecting huge numbers of people over 6 week cycle .. very few ended up in hospital because toxicity had decreased ..

"Covid injections saved lives - prevented hospitalizations" - once again this is a nonsense claim without quantification. I fully agree tht the Jab saved a few lives .. prevented some hospitalizations. What you have yet to understand .. is that this is only true for a small segment of the population .. but you are trying to generalize over the whole population .. hence the use of the term "Healthy Children" ..meaning generally not already at deaths door. .. severely immune compromized. .. and Yes .. the Jab Helps these folks .. But, the findings of analysis of this population . .have no relevance to the other 99.99%.

So Covid injections did not save the lives of any Children not in the 0.01 category .. because there were none to save. None meaning "No significant number"

Go find the number of healthy Children died .. should be simple .. .. one can very easily come up with the number of deaths broken down by age demographic. Don't take my word for it .. or the Gov't's word for it .. nor the various propaganda parroting institutions and media outlet . Propaganda which was horrible during the Pandemic .. Gov't out of control power hungry .. but that is another matter.

Don't listen to me .. go find out for yourself .. Tell us the number of (Healthy) dead children .. .. feel free to use nations other than the US for Stats .. in fact .. that would probably be preferrable .. more accurate in many cases but US will do.

The argument that quantification is needed
seems odd when wielded by anti-vaxers who
dismiss quantitative evidence & analysis.

 

[Sargonski]

It's a useful goal, & achieved to an extent.
But it's not the only goal....at least for those
of us interested in guarding our health.

You've not shown that it doesn't prevent transmission.
And you missed the goal of reducing Covid 19 severity
because this avoided over-loading hospitals that were
already strained past their limits.

Why support a dishonest politician's efforts
to manipulate people to stop people being
vaccinated against diseases?

I do not support the efforts of dishonest politicians .. and wasn't me brought Kennedy into the discussion .. and he has no bearing on the fact that the VAx did not prevent transmission .. and I have addressed reduction of Covid Severity .. many times. The CDC will tell you the Vax did not prevent transmission .. but they shouldn't need to .. what part of Omnicron went through the population in 6 weeks .. when mostly vaxed .. do you not understand ?

The vax did not stop healthy folks from hitting the hospitals in any significant numbers.. didn't prevent death .. didn't result in less hospitalizations .. cause healthy people were simply no showing up in significant numbers. Tell us how many healthy Children died from Covid ? ..

CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated​

CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated

A new CDC report found that nearly three-fourths of people who were infected in a COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts earlier this summer were fully vaccinated.

www.verywellhealth.com

A new report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last Friday found that 74% of people who were infected in a COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts earlier this summer were fully vaccinated against the virus.

The data also found that people who are fully vaccinated and get infected can carry as much of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in their noses as those who are unvaccinated. As a result, they can spread the infection to others.

The study, which was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on July 30, detailed the July 2021 COVID-19 outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts—specifically Provincetown. Several large public events in the area led to 469 COVID-19 cases in people who traveled to the area between July 3 and 17. Of the 469 people infected, 346 (or 74%) were fully vaccinated against the virus.1

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021. July 30, 2021.

Genomic testing on 133 patients found that 90% had the Delta variant. The majority of patients with breakthrough infections—79%—experienced symptoms, including cough, headaches, sore throat, muscle aches and pains, and fever.

Of those who had breakthrough infections:

• 159 (46%) had the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine
• 131 (38%) had the Moderna vaccine
• 56 (16%) had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine

Among five people who were hospitalized in the outbreak, four were fully vaccinated. No deaths were reported in the outbreak.

An excellent study .. in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report -- Clearly showing a ridiculously poor Transmission prevention .. and didn't do anything about hospitalizations. ..

Yet .. around this time and for months after .. many media pundits were still claiming Transmission prevention .. some still are .. by skeakily claiming "Transmission Reduction" .. knowing the public will associate this with a prevention or significant decrease.... like you did .. a subtle but knowing and intentional fallacy.

 

[Sargonski]

Children may survive but they can pass COVID to their parent and grandparents, or to immune compromised people (including other children.)

What does this have to do with the Vax ? The vax doesn't change the passability onto the parent or grandparents .. to any significant degree .. and infected people should be kept away from immune compromized. See post 350

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not support the efforts of dishonest politicians .. and wasn't me brought Kennedy into the discussion .. and he has no bearing on the fact that the VAx did not prevent transmission .....

It's not a fundamental problem that vaccination doesn't
prevent transmission. Sure, it would be nice if a vaccine
did everything we wanted with 100% efficacy, but in the
real world, we use vaccines that are useful to reduce
transmission, reduce morbidity, reduce hospitalization,
reduce severity, & shorten symptoms.

and I have addressed reduction of Covid Severity .. many times. The CDC will tell you the Vax did not prevent transmission .. but they shouldn't need to .. what part of Omnicron went through the population in 6 weeks .. when mostly vaxed .. do you not understand ?

Why obsess over one feature a vaccine lacks,
& ignore the features that are life saving?
This is the Kennedy tactic.

The vax did not stop healthy folks from hitting the hospitals in any significant numbers..

Evidence for this claim?

didn't prevent death .. didn't result in less hospitalizations .. cause healthy people were simply no showing up in significant numbers. Tell us how many healthy Children died from Covid ? ..

CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated​

CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated

A new CDC report found that nearly three-fourths of people who were infected in a COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts earlier this summer were fully vaccinated.

www.verywellhealth.com

An excellent study .. in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report -- Clearly showing a ridiculously poor Transmission prevention .. and didn't do anything about hospitalizations. ..

Yet .. around this time and for months after .. many media pundits were still claiming Transmission prevention .. some still are .. by skeakily claiming "Transmission Reduction" .. knowing the public will associate this with a prevention or significant decrease.... like you did .. a subtle but knowing and intentional fallacy.

Don't fall for the anti-vaxer trick of attacking bogus
claims heard in the media as evidence that vaccines
don't work.
You don't want to be one of those people.

 

[Wandering Monk]

What does this have to do with the Vax ? The vax doesn't change the passability onto the parent or grandparents .. to any significant degree .. and infected people should be kept away from immune compromized. See post 350

According to the Mayo Clinic, the incubation period for COVID can be between 2 and 14 days. That means you may pass the virus before you have symptoms.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Symptoms and causes

www.mayoclinic.org

 

[Sargonski]

According to the Mayo Clinic, the incubation period for COVID can be between 2 and 14 days. That means you may pass the virus before you have symptoms.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Symptoms and causes

www.mayoclinic.org

Good information .. but has no relevance to the Jab having any ability to prevent you passing on the virus On some of the initial Cruise line outbreaks you had 90% of folks assymptomatic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Never said death morbidity data for vax compares or doesn't compare with morbidity data for covid infection

No, you didn't. You ignored the topic when I made the claim and provided the supporting data. Your claim is that what matters is that transmission wasn't sufficiently prevented. My answer was, so what? Lives were saved.

Your claims about viral Load are nonsense

They're fact. If you could demonstrate otherwise, that is, falsify the claim, you would, but you can't, because viral transmission rates and their mitigation is medical science.

the phrase "reduced transmission" is nonsense

It actually has a very clear meaning. Which part is ambiguous or disputed for you - What transmission is? Whether transmission occurs between infected and uninfected individuals? Whether its rate is amenable to human intervention?

"Covid injections saved lives - prevented hospitalizations" - once again this is a nonsense claim

Same answer: No, it's a fact. If it weren't, you could rebut it, but you can't. Because demonstrably correct statements cannot be successfully rebutted. Try it. Or don't. The result will be the same either way - the claim you reject won't be falsified.

So Covid injections did not save the lives of any Children not in the 0.01 category

So what?

Red herring fallacy: "This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first."

Don't listen to me .. go find out for yourself

I'm a retired, board certified, specialist in Internal Medicine. I studied immunology, virology, infectious disease, and epidemiology in medical school and beyond, including through Dr. Fauci himself (indirectly via THE main IM text), and I followed the pandemic closely. What relevant fact do you think you know about this subject that I don't? What do you think you can teach me about this subject?

 

[Sargonski]

It's not a fundamental problem that vaccination doesn't
prevent transmission. Sure, it would be nice if a vaccine
did everything we wanted with 100% efficacy, but in the
real world, we use vaccines that are useful to reduce
transmission, reduce morbidity, reduce hospitalization,
reduce severity, & shorten symptoms.

Why obsess over one feature a vaccine lacks,
& ignore the features that are life saving?
This is the Kennedy tactic.

Evidence for this claim?

Don't fall for the anti-vaxer trick of attacking bogus
claims heard in the media as evidence that vaccines
don't work.
You don't want to be one of those people.

no one said anything about 100% efficiency .. you stating this shows you don't understand the subject matter.

You were given the evidence for the vax not preventing transmission .. evidence published by the CDC .. which you are now saying was Bogus anti vaxer Trick ?

What is wierd .. is you crying out that I am obsessing over lack of transmission prevention -- in a convo about transmission prevention .. but then in the next sentence ask for evidence ?? .. who is the one obscessing mate

Then you pretend reduction of severity was not addressed .. when it was .. the reduced severity only applying to a small group of severely immune compromized - morbidly obese - 3 comorbidities.. not to the general public as you fallaciously protest.

 

[Sargonski]

No, you didn't. You ignored the topic when I made the claim and provided the supporting data. Your claim is that what matters is that transmission wasn't sufficiently prevented. My answer was, so what? Lives were saved.

They're fact. If you could demonstrate otherwise, that is, falsify the claim, you would, but you can't, because viral transmission rates and their mitigation is medical science.

I agreed that lives were saved .. what topic did I ignore ? It is you who is desperate to ignore the fact that the vax does not prevent transmission .. as per the Study given .. a study which assessed viral Load .. to damning effect.

who said viral transmission rates and mitigation was not medical science .. virology to be exact .. and what on earth are you talking about .. as it is you who clearly does not understand the topic .. using language and terms in a technically incorrect way .. having no idea what those terms mean.

You seem to not understand that the Vax did not reduce severity in any significant way for the vast majority of the population.. Did you not understand that 4 our of 5 of the 74% vaxed crowd in the Massachussets outbreak-- who showed up in the hospital were vaxed ? .. What does the medical science have to say about that transmission prevention rate ?

CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated

A new CDC report found that nearly three-fourths of people who were infected in a COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts earlier this summer were fully vaccinated.

www.verywellhealth.com

CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated​

 

[Wandering Monk]

I agreed that lives were saved .. what topic did I ignore ? It is you who is desperate to ignore the fact that the vax does not prevent transmission .. as per the Study given .. a study which assessed viral Load .. to damning effect.

who said viral transmission rates and mitigation was not medical science .. virology to be exact .. and what on earth are you talking about .. as it is you who clearly does not understand the topic .. using language and terms in a technically incorrect way .. having no idea what those terms mean.

You seem to not understand that the Vax did not reduce severity in any significant way for the vast majority of the population.. Did you not understand that 4 our of 5 of the 74% vaxed crowd in the Massachussets outbreak-- who showed up in the hospital were vaxed ? .. What does the medical science have to say about that transmission prevention rate ?

CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated

A new CDC report found that nearly three-fourths of people who were infected in a COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts earlier this summer were fully vaccinated.

www.verywellhealth.com

CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated​

The article you cited says that this was the Delta variant of COVID. It was a mutation of the native virus for which the vaccines were created. Delta was more transmissible and could breakthrough the vaccine. It also broke through natural immunity incurred from previous COVID infections.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You seem to not understand that the Vax did not reduce severity in any significant way for the vast majority of the population.. Did you not understand that 4 our of 5 of the 74% vaxed crowd in the Massachussets outbreak-- who showed up in the hospital were vaxed ? .. What does the medical science have to say about that transmission prevention rate ?

More red herring.

How about we identify our positions, where they differ, and discuss those differences rather than playing this game. My position is that the vaccine was safer than the infection, that it saved many lives, that it prevented many cases of sever Covid requiring hospitalization, that it protected life savings, that it prevented some children becoming orphans, that it reduced the incidence of long Covid.

Do you disagree with any of that? If so, what part specifically, and do you have falsifying argument (rebuttal) or is just a hunch that the idea is incorrect? If you agree with it all, what's your objection? What are you arguing? It seems to be nothing but irrelevancies that seem to imply that the vaccine isn't a good idea and shouldn't be taken, but don't actually make that case. Is that your position? If so, please state it explicitly and present whatever data you have in support, or admit that you really have no thesis or argument, just a vague grievance for no apparent reason unless it has something to do with your son losing his job over a vaccine mandate. Is that what this is?

If so, there's nothing here for me or you. I'm not interested in your beliefs, just why you hold the ones that contradict mainstream medicine, and if you have any, falsifying evidence.

Also, look at how much of what is written to you you ignore without any mention must less an affirmation of refutation. As best I can tell, you know next to nothing about vaccines or how to make decisions about them. You thought they protect the immunocompromised most. I refuted that and you ignored the refutation. You think that evolving viruses and falling transmission rates is an argument against these vaccines. I refuted that as well, and once again, bupkis from you. You imply that child morbidity and mortality data is relevant to anybody but children and those who love them, but it's not. It's just another distraction from you, which I identified as such earlier, which you failed to acknowledge mist less attempt to rebut.

As I said, I don't mind that you are this way until you spread falsehoods, and then I correct them. Don't get vaccinated if you think that's the right thing for you. It doesn't matter any more. Nobody cares if you're vaccinated any more. If you turn down a vaccine and suffer significantly for your choice, that will have no impact on my life - just yours.

I'm not interested in trying to make you see what I see at this point. That's not possible under the circumstances. It's just damage control now - explaining how and why you are wrong to OTHERS. From the pen of the poet: "You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know."

 

[Revoltingest]

no one said anything about 100% efficiency

It's "efficacy".

.. you stating this shows you don't understand the subject matter.

Dang it, you broke the thing!