As it stands, is there a single SHRED of evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission?

How do you know that you didn't get it? Negative test result?

 

"VERY limited studies." Is that conclusive scientific evidence?

 

You said you couldn't find ANYTHING, I found something in less than 30 seconds.

COVID is new, conclusive evidence about it, is rare at this point. YOU, go find conclusive evidence that the vaccine doesn't prevent the spread of COVID.

 

That's it. It reduces viral load, so you're much less likely to spread it to others than an unvaccinated person is.

 

What you found was not conclusive scientific evidence. Simple!

Prove a NEGATIVE? That's not the way it works!

 

Yes, so... what's the evidence that it reduces viral load?

 

The fact that vaccinated people aren't getting anywhere near as sick as unvaccinated people!

Do you really not understand?

 

Asymptomatic people cannot have the same viral load as symptomatic people?

 

It's mostly related. There are some outliers who will have a high viral load and be relatively well, but it's not common.

 

Who told you that? You been watching Tucker Carlson or Hannity?

 

Between vaxxed and natural immunity, that's a decent estimate of the number with at least some immunity.

 

What's the science behind this?

 

Who told me WHAT? What do you think I said?

 

I don't know.

There is certainly a great deal of evidence that the vaxxed can catch it and spread it.

​

 

90% of new infection hospitalizations are not vaccinated people despite being less than half the US population.
10% are vaccinated people which falls right in line with the promised efficiency.
Pretty easy math, 90 is a lot bigger than 10.

 

What does this have to do with whether or not the vaccines prevent transmission?

 

You didn't ask for "conclusive proof", you specifically asked "for a shred of evidence"; I easily met that challenge. I don't think it's fair to change the rules once you've made them.

If you're so positive about your position, surely there's something to support it, or else it's just an opinion.

 

It means that 90% of those whose bodies are reproducing the virus rather than killing the virus and subsequently transmitting more are not vaccinated despite being less than half the population.

 

What's the evidence that the vaccine prevents reproduction of the virus and subsequently prevents transmitting it?

 

Yeah you did meet that challenge actually. I'd forgotten how I phrased it. I phrased it like that because it seemed that there really wasn't any evidence, so it seemed appropriate to ask for even just a "SHRED." Now, based on what you found, does this justify vaccine mandates, and does it justify labeling the unvaccinated as a THREAT?

 

Sure, but calling people with natural immunity "vaxxed" is misleading. Although it seems totally fair to call them 'vaxxed equivalent. '

 

Delta?

 

From what I understand, the vaccine reduces the effort your body must exert to defeat the virus. This would mean your body would have an easier and thus faster time dealing with it, which would make sense for it to decrease the amount of time that an infected person is able to transmit the virus to others.

...in a laboratory scenario, anyway.

In real life, people who feel sick are far less likely to go out in public. People who feel less sick are less likely to isolate themselves and thus more likely to spread infection. So while I think its reasonable to expect that vaccine can reduce transmission, its not reasonable to conclude that it necessarily does.

To perfectly illustrate this- employers are more and more commonly exempting the vaccinated from being required to be tested for covid. So the people who are more likely to spread the virus (because they don't feel as sick while they are transmissable) are basically being ignored while the people who are more likely to stay home of their own volition when sick (because they feel sick) are the ones being required to get tested.

This is why all the mandates are being resisted- its clear to the people that actually wonder how they're supposed to work that they don't work and its all just degenerated into partisan virtue signalling and an excuse to persecute and segregate people who won't just blindly 'follow the rules'.

 

My reply? Possibly. But with what other posters have found; definitely.

 

What do you make of this: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ts-transmission.592659/page-3#post-1072973661