Are vaccines really effective in preventing Covid infections (and deaths)?

Oh. Vaccines are not intended to prevent sequelae? Since when?

I did. I pointed out science refutes the entire premise of your thread. Sorry science has a way of making your threads look silly.

My side? I don’t have a side politically. I’m on the side of science. That’s why I’ve backed up my claims with studies and statistics you can’t refute. I’ve shown you vaccines DON’T work in they manner you’ve been led to believe. I have shown you what they do well and what they don’t do well. You know, the facts. As usual, my posts are based on science and yours are unsubstantiated opinions.

Is Trump President in Vermont today?

Every post of mine has specifically addressed YOUR content in the thread. I QUOTE you using the QUOTE FUNCTION and then point out YOUR errors. That is not changing the subject. LOL

 

Which brings us to the question on the OP. What has caused the number of infections to come down since Trump left power? Answer with references if you are a serious poster. Answer with excuses... or DON'T answer, if you're not. If the latter is the case, that it would be a waste of time to try to continue this debate with you.

 

WHATEVER it says, it has to be quoted verbatim and, most importantly, in context.

But neither the poster nor you will do that because it's NONSENSE that 98% of people who are vaccinated test positive.

In any case, your distraction (and nonsense) is noted. But that does not answer the question on the OP. And trying to tap dance around it is definite indication that neither of you has any idea what you're talking about,

 

Read again! This time... focus!!!

 

I can't resist...

Natural immunity comes to mind. Those who have been infected and survived. When 47.5 Million people have tested positive, regardless of who is in power, you start running out of people to be infected.

how many cases of coronavirus in us - Google Search

 

You need to focus. If you don’t want a subject discussed, DON’T post about that SUBJECT.

You made this statement:

Your statement is in denial of science. Vaccines are not turning out to be effective at preventing transmission. This means people not hospitalized or dead are ending up with high rates of sequelae because vaccines are only about 50% effective at preventing sequelae in breakthrough infections. As usual, you make bizarre false statements and then whine incessantly when someone points out your denial of science.

I am quoting YOUR false statements. You need to focus on posting less blatant science denial. After a period of you focusing on not posting science denial content, PF may begin to take your posts seriously. But not until then.

 

No! we are faaar from reaching herd immunity. And even less so in January. There is still too big a chunk of the population that HAS NOT been infected.

So, what is your REAL answer?

 

Natural infection acquired immunity is partially responsible for decreasing infection/death rates. Hybrid immunity is as well. Hybrid immunity is what will be responsible for most reduced transmission and death going forward into the future.

 

Note: They were already coming down before Trump left power.
[1] The winding down of flu season.
[2] The increase in the number of people with immunity.

Source: NYT "Coronavirus In The US" map

Answer was given.

We're not debating; we are discussing... Well, I am discussing and you are largely chanting.

 

I didn't say 'herd immunity'. I said 'natural immunity'. Focus!

 

Read the article. It says that 87 / 89 vaccinated people got COVID. After some simple mathematics, 87 / 89 = 98% ... Thus, 98% of the people at that specific location came down with COVID even though they were "fully vaccinated".

We've both already done so.

Within that specific location, it is NOT nonsense... It happened, dude. You can't rationally deny it.

The distraction (and nonsense) belongs to you, not me.

I've already answered it.

I've already answered it.

We both know what we are talking about.

 

I think we are close to desired 70%. of herd immunity about 60% are vaccinated plus 45 millions infected.
Add to that asymptomatic carriers and we have about 300,000,000 people.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-tricky-math-of-covid-19-herd-immunity-20200630/

There is no need to implement totalitarian state.

 

If vaccines are not effective at preventing transmission, why have the number of cases (most importantly deaths and hospitalizations, but...if you want to go that route) in this country?

THAT is the topic of this forum.

 

Well countries at the top of this list such as Portugal, Spain and Japan show otherwise
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=austria+vaccination+rate

 

Wrong, and wrong.

The article says that "87 of the 89 infected residents and staff were fully vaccinated."

This means that 98% of the infected were fully vaccinated, and not that 98% of everyone who was fully vaccinated was infected.

 

Hybrid??? Are you (gasp!) saying that vaccines are effective in preventing Covid? It can't be! Say it ain't so!

Of course, you DID say that they worked before... but that was before you said that they didn't... which was before you said that they did... right before you said that we are at war with Eastasia and we have ALWAYS been at war with ...

Wait! This is still 1984, right?

 

I didn't ask about before Trump left power. I'm talking about January to date! Focus!

 

You're attempting to rebut a position that is not being taken (I will grant that my prior comment had some poor wording in it).

The point is that 87 / 89 people who were infected with COVID were vaccinated individuals (and that the remaining two were not vaccinated).

I would personally expect, given a vaccine that is "working", for such numbers to be the complete opposite way around, that hardly anyone who is infected with COVID would be a vaccinated person and that almost everyone who is infected with COVID would be unvaccinated.

 

Yes, they are really effective. That's kind of what vaccines are for.

 

Are you aware that Trump was in power for the first 19 days of January?? Cases were already coming down by then. Focus!

 

Why would I read an article that you won't even QUOTE?

In any case, I know what the article says., And it DOESN'T say what the poster claimed. In fact, the poster who originally made the claim appears to have bailed out and left you on your own holding the line on a statement THEY made up. In trying to defend the credibility of a poster who said such nonsense you have lost your own. So stop trying to waste my time.

 

We have no reason to believe that we are anywhere near herd immunity. Given that the effectiveness of vaccines appears to have an expiration date, and there is no evidence that people who were infected remain immune. I don't know if we will EVER achieve herd immunity. But vaccines DO save lives. And that's the main point of this thread.

 

If almost 100% of a community is vaccinated, it follows that almost 100% of those infected will be vaccinated. It's not possible for it to be otherwise.

It's also not possible to say that the number of infections is evidence that the vaccine isn't working, because you are ignoring

(a) the size of the population, which would enable you to calculate what proportion has been infected, and
(b) infection rates in unvaccinated populations, which would enable you to assess what difference it may or may not make.

 

Anything YOU post is the topic on an open forum. Let’s stick with the question YOU posed in the thread title since you don’t want the subject changed. Here it is since your memory seems to fail you at opportune times.

The word hospitalizations does not appear in your OP title or post. Again, since your memory is poor.

If vaccines are responsible for decreased infections what was responsible for decreased infections prior to vaccines being available? Here’s an example of a Red state seeing DRASTIC reductions in infections BEFORE vaccines were available (vaccination started in South Dakota around Dec. 14, 2021) and WHILE Trump was still President.


Now what about nationally? We see infections had fallen drastically before vaccines were available and before the inauguration. And when vaccination rates were high in September 2021, infection rates mirrored rates at the end of the Trump administration.


As I said, infection rates are not affected much by vaccination over the long term (past 3-5 months post vaccination). What also affects transmission? Lots of things. Natural immunity, the fact the 780,000+ fatalities include a lot of superspreaders that can no longer transmit, changes in behaviors (school in or out of session), and changes in testing strategies (we are not testing as much and not testing asymptomatics as much, therefore missing a large share of breakthrough infections).

Again, there is no simple answer to your questions (that in itself is a false premise). All of you (left and right) politicizing this pandemic make science a casualty in the process. Your partisan points don’t stand up to the scrutiny of empirical evidence.

 

What is all this crap? Did you just post some chart about South Dakota?

God! Why won't you answer the question? You said vaccines are not effective at preventing transmission! So if that is the case, according to you, what has caused the number of cases (deaths and hospitalizations being the most relevant "cases") in this country to come down since January?