I'm just speculating here. My thoughts go like this: Airborne pathogen is (coughed) excreted fewer times, with less velocity = smaller surface area for others' exposure. Unreasonable?
Read your link because it does not say what you claim it says. The study shows 251 times viral load of Delta vs alpha variants. The study is not about vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
delta produces different protein for spike vs alpha vaxes, so there is no mechanism fo vax to work. vax does the evolutionary selection for delta by eliminating only alpha
Nope, it has the exact same spike protein. Not sure where you got the false idea that it doesn't. The immune system and the vaccine have the same evolutionary response.
Again your own link does not back up your claim. It says right in there that vaccine helps against the varients. It says disease from Delta with the vaccinated is rare.
The resistance is just a bunch of petulant children bitching. I do agree with the experts though, as any sane person would.denying experts is as smooth brain as you can get.
Exactly, and you say that while clearly not understanding that. You keep cherry picking those disagreements and discussions to reach absurd conclusions not supported by those studies.
I was pretty specific about which of your claims your own links are debunking. You keep claiming the vaccine is ineffective, and tried to claim it's 0.7% effective against Delta.
NO! There is no word "reduced" in publication, ARR vs RRR, learn it! Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines
I read your linked study. The study says the same thing I am saying. It says right in the study that the vaccine is still effective, and most severe cases are among the unvaccinated.
Its funny the way you keep posting the links that debunk everything you are saying. You are obviously unqualified to even have an opinion on what those studies say.
I saw that you made up that idea. The main place pin your link you see that is in the comment section where people were arguing about what the study said.
Sorry, down to 94.3% effective. You clearly are not reading these links. You just skim them looking to cherry pick out something. You misread, or misunderstand the study you linked.
NO! absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures
That is a bold claim that is not supported by any of the studies you have linked. At most there is only a slight reduction of effectiveness by 0.7%, not down to 0.7%.
Were do you get the absurd idea that it says reduced to that effectiveness? Even if the study says what you claim it would just be wrong as real world data would debunk it.
No, you originally claimed the vaccine is only 0.7% effective against the delta varients long ago. The only thing in your link making that claim is a comment in the comment section.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/ Not in comments, even in the abstract 0.7% mentioned two times. This is from February, so NOT Delta. RRR=95% ARR=0.7% same moment, same vax
You are trying to claim that ARR matters, and RRR does not, and that is just wrong. Its the problem with a layman trying to read a study and making claims based on their ignorance.
I think you misunderstood what that page was saying .... I went to the link you sent. Read whole thing and looked at graphs. Concluded vaccines BARELY passed placebo test lol
It was not my link, but what matters is that it clearly shows 95% efficacy compared to placebo, aka nothing. So being vaccinated is 95% better than being unvaccinated.
No, that is not the difference between ARR and RRR. Real world data would debunk any absurd claim of only 0.7% efficacy. Do you have anything to back up the 0.7% number?
So according to this link it says that more people need to be vaccinated to be more effective. Its funny that you think these studies support the anti-vax position.
Also it says RRR of around 67%, which is all irrelevant. It works, and this is just arguments about the finer points. No where does it say the vaccine is not effective.
That opinion piece you linked is written by a fool. Its funny the way people try to blame Fauci for any unrelated issue. The guy is the best expert to listen to on Covid.
No opinion piece on the subject matters. Actual data is what matters. All the studies you link just say we need more people vaccinated. Some only claim we need a booster shot.
I have pointed out where she was wrong, and where you were wrong. You guys are acting as 8f one number is a lie, and the other is truth, and showing you do not understand either.
Did they really admit he lied? Show me something about that. Let's see what they actually said. Its funny they way people blame Fauci as if he was directing Chinese experiments.
Even if the study tried to actually claim the vaccine was ineffective it would just mean the study was flawed. One study does not invalidate the real world data.
Ha, no. You have no evidence that nations are lying. That said we can compare different nations numbers and see which are likely closer to the truth. Some are off, but thats irrelevant
Odd thing about science and data is how you look at it can dramatically change your perspective. ESPECIALLY if you trust a certain BELIEF too much you'll be blind to truth....
According to your link "To bring this pandemic to an end, a large share of the world needs to be immune to the virus. The safest way to achieve this is with a vaccine."
Unless you go by the #s the W.H.O. puts out (fudged data) REAL data collected worldwide shows otherwise & the media & the W.H.O. are lying for their new dictators....
Nope, it shows very little difference between WHO data and other official sources of data. The main would be dictator to WHO was Trump. Thankfully Biden is fixing that damage.
Yes, and video that promotes anti-vax ideas is effective in killing people. Anti-vaxxers have caused outbreaks for diseases that had been removed from populations.
Are you saying that were you got the information changes based on what thread you are typing in? That or someone else made that claim and I confused it with you?
You are trying to cherry pick phrases out of it while ignoring what the study actually says. Yes they worry about reduced efficacy with varients, which is why we see studies about it.
Do you just hope no one will read the links themselves? Again your own link debunks your claims. It says right there that the vaccine is effective against the varients.
The vaccine still attaches to it. This says there has been some mutation, others have said it doesn't, but you claimed the vaccine no longer worked because it mutated, which is untrue.
Your cherry picking is funny since the study is less certain than you imply, and in the end only shows why we need nearly 100% vaccination rates. The more it spreads the more it mutate
Every one of the studies you link says that it shows why we need more people vaccinated. Not one of your links argues against vaccinations, or claim the vaccinations are not useful.
Oh I never strayed from my argument. The delta varients isn't mutated on the spike gene, and the vaccine still works. Some mutations may be going on other varients.
Delta B.1.617.2 L452R is a substitution at position 452, confers a stronger affinity of the S protein for the ACE2 receptor and decreased recognition capability of the immune system
Nothing on that this link implies vaccination is useless, or that it is not the best option. You keep linking studies that you refuse to accept the conclusions of.
No quote out of context invalidates the conclusions these researchers come to. Your strange idea that vaccines cause mutations is just something you heard.
Every study you link that says some spike protein mutations may effect the vaccine, and that more vaccinations are needed to prevent this. Some possible changes for a booster shot.
Even if I am mistaken on any point it does not change the fact that the study that corrects me reaches the same conclusion as I do. That more people need to be vaccinated due to this.
Just a peripheral observation; you and Corn are an approximation of immovable object meets unstoppable force; neither one willing to budge even an inch. It's actually quite impressive.
Its difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. This is why you cherry pick Snippets from studies instead of following their conclusions.
Ha, no. That is not how things work. Mutations happen randomly. The more it spreads the more chance it has to mutate. More vaccination mean less chance to mutate.
Its not just less coughing causing less spread, but also being infected for less time as well. Real studies show less viral load for the vaccinated as well.