and how many of those vaccinated individuals required hospitalization?

So why risk your health long term with untested vaccine when you can still catch it, still spread it, still forced to wear masks, still forced to lockdown?

I have less restrictions as someone who don't give a fuck. Nobody stop me to tell me to wear a mask.

To the best of my knowledge, no expert ever expected a fully sterilizing immunity from these vaccines. The hope of some epidemiologists and politicians, particularly those favoring a NoCovid or ZeroCovid strategy, was that the vaccines induce a very strong reduction in the transmissibility, so that this aspect of the vaccinations would allow us to keep infections down with less restrictions.


For example, the Robert Koch Institut, which is basically the German equivalent of the CDC, still says the following on their homepage:

https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/COVID-Impfen/FAQ_Transmission.html


If these assumptions are really wrong, then the only way to keep up a low incidence strategy would be an open-ended continuation of restrictions on public, social and economic life. This debate might sound esoteric to you Americans since your political leadership never really entertained pursuing such a strategy, but this debate will become increasingly relevant and fierce here in Europe over the coming months.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 30 2021 07:21pm

They are bout to force lockdown 24/7 all year round like most of us predicted day one of this hoax.

There's no variant. It's only a scheme to keep this hoax going.

There could be 100% vaccination and they'd still create a dozen variants that you'd need booster for every "X" weeks.

You guys getting played.

if by untested you mean the historically most tested vaccine to exist. mask protection right now is more about protecting the unvaccinated and the at risk. those vaccinated will largely be fine, did you miss when i said those are not the people requiring hospitalization?

this is extreme. why lock down? as i said the people who are getting it are unvaccinated. if it gets to a point of hospital saturation in certain areas because arm chair experts think they know better, then yes there may need to be regional specific lockdowns. Missouri for example which is max occupancy in several major counties and cities, would need to consider such restrictions.

nobody realistically thinks "nocovid" or "zerocovid" is a reality. covid will be here for the next decade becoming increasingly benign, which is what the majority have been saying for the last year

What long term health affects would you expect with the vaccine? What mechanism would cause these adverse affects?

Do you not wear condoms when fucking people? After all, there is still some chance the condom won't work. You might have an allergic reaction to the latex, you might squeeze a dick vein too hard and cause irreparable dick damage. There's just so much that could go wrong!

Plenty of virologists and scientists from other fields have been, and still are, pushing for such a strategy. It took Johnson in the UK a lot of resolve to dismiss their outcry when he pushed for a full reopening in spite of growing cases. Here in Germany, Merkel has strong sympathies for the concept, she just couldn't find the support for it among the state and local leadership. Australia and New Zealand keep up their strategy of trying to keep cases (of community transmission) at zero. China still does it. Vietnam and Thailand for the longest time did it.

Like I said, this debate might sound esoteric to you Americans, but it's real in other places of the world. And for this debate about whether to pursue "flatten the curve" or low incidences, it is highly relevant if the risk of transmission by a fully vaccinated person is reduced by a factor of, say, 90% or just by, say, 30%. If the number is 90%, then a 70% vaccination rate essentially means that the reproduction number of the virus is reduced by 63% thanks to the vaccines. If you want to keep infections down, which implies keeping R(t) below 1, you absolutely need that for contagious variants like delta with its R(0) of 5 or higher.

By contrast, if the reduction in transmissibility was only 30%, then a 70% vaccination rate would reduce R(t) by just 21%, which makes it impossible to keep R(t) below 1 without ongoing, open-ended lockdowns. Therefore, if these reports about vaccinations doing very little to stymie transmission are true, that's effectively the end for any low incidence strategy.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 30 2021 07:44pm

https://news.yahoo.com/1-6-billion-disposable-masks-142813561.html

the intersection of climate change zealots and “2x masks while alone in a car or walking alone on the beach” on the Venn diagram will yield interesting results

lmao

In my experience, the "covid hawks" are largely identical with the climate change zealots. Just goes to show what hypocrites they are.

here in califorina it can get to triple digits and no mask newsome wants to bring back the mask. yo fukin really believe a flu virus in the middle of summer?

you really think its the flu?????????????????????????????

Leaked CDC Docs Destroy White House Vaccine Messaging

74% Of Cases In Cape Cod COVID Outbreak FULLY VACCINATED

This post was edited by TiStuff on Jul 30 2021 08:11pm