(10-27-2021, 09:09 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]"Using large-scale contact tracing data, we show that BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccination both reduce onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals infected despite vaccination. However, reductions in transmission are lower for the Delta variant compared to Alpha for BNT162b2 and likely lower for ChAdOx1 too. Vaccines continue to provide protection against infection with Delta, but to a lesser degree than with Alpha in large population-based studies, particularly for infections with symptoms or moderate/high viral loads.8 Therefore, Delta erodes vaccine-associated protection against transmission by both making infection more common and increasing the likelihood of transmission from vaccinated individuals who become infected."
You just can't help yourself, even when the words clearly say what I said you still have to disagree with them. It's almost a pathology for you at this point to disagree with anything I say.
Let's do this line by line:
1. Using large-scale contact tracing data, we show that BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccination both reduce onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals infected despite vaccination.
This is the only thing that supports what you are claiming, but they are about to back off of that with the next line. They are going to draw a clear distinction between the Alpha and Delta variant. This data makes some sense with Alpha, but not with Delta, and that is specifically what I have talking about in previous posts.
2.
However,
reductions in transmission are lower for the Delta variant compared to Alpha for BNT162b2 and likely lower for ChAdOx1 too.
Let's get rid of the double negative there. They are saying that transmission of the Delta variant is higher compared to Alpha, which is what I have been saying this whole time. The vaccine does not reduce transmission rate by that much for the Delta variant. Now add to this the fact that this very same article says that becomes EVEN LOWER the younger people get. Also from the article, the weren't seeing massive amounts of spread from work environments, which was weird to me, but it's what they say, not me. This is now three factors that works AGAINST your argument.
3. Vaccines continue to provide protection against infection with Delta, but to a lesser degree than with Alpha in large population-based studies, particularly for infections with symptoms or moderate/high viral loads.
They have switched from transmission rate to infection rate. No problems with this. It's just stating what we already know, namely that the vaccine does provide protection against infection. Even with this study, it's still recognizing that Delta bypasses some of the protection of this vaccine. So, even when they were in the early phases of Delta, they were already acknowledging the problem of the Delta variant. Imagine how that emphasis might have changed knowing the breakthrough rate of the Delta variant. It does keep people out of hospitals, but that's not what we're debating, is it?
4. Therefore,
Delta erodes vaccine-associated protection against transmission by both making infection more common and increasing the likelihood of transmission from vaccinated individuals who become infected.
Look at that word they chose there.... ERODES. Could they state that any more strongly? They are very obviously declaring that Delta tears down the protections afforded by the vaccine because it is more contagious and vaccinated individuals are more likely to spread it. I mean, dang dude... how much more does it need to be spelled out for you? Now add in all the other stuff I mentioned from the article, and it becomes even more clear that this vaccine is likely not affording much protection to unvaccinated individuals... especially healthy under 50.
Even when the words clearly say what I said, you still have to disagree with them. It's almost like a pathology with you to ignore the actual facts. I know you need to believe you fired those people for a just cause, but you didn't.
Oh, I had a decent time, btw. Thanks.