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

Oh, for the good ole' days of Cuomo.

 

We are at a point where anything is possible. Executive authority has jumped in a similar way to after 9/11 and same as then they won't give it up.

The ratchet effect is a hell of a bitch.

 

You mean, COVID tirade?

 

A whole other issue altogether, especially since the topic wasn't one of whether mandates should exist or not.

 

So are you saying that the vaccine protects the vaxxed from the unvaxxed?

 

That seemed to be the case with the original varient ... although this was from studies from the drug companies which turned out to be ridiculously wrong .. and this was early on in the pandemic. Delta changed all that - and now they are finding it has almost no ability to check transmission over the unvaxed.

 

Yes, from death.

 

If I could jump in for the other, the other is posting that like 9/11 executive power in the federal and state went way, way too far and personal liberties are certainly in great peril from the moron executives?

 

Covid is nothing like Small Pox. It's pattern will mimic the flu and cold...which is not going away.

 

You can call it whatever you like, it's goverment overeach and an ultimatum.

 

The point must be made that the NY state governor is moronic in thinking that the unvaccinated can be the cause of an adverse reaction the vaccinated may receive from catching Covid...Again, the moronic governor is confusing the nonsensical worrying about number of cases with actual peril from Covid.

 

I don't see Delta being specified in the OP's title. But I understand your need to move the goal line.

 

He wasn't saying anything about the vaccine or the virus(es) there. He was commenting on people in power taking advantage of the situation to get more power.

 

A grim warning from Israel: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta
With early vaccination and outstanding data, country is the world’s real-life COVID-19 lab
https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta

Never mind stopping transmission - where the vax is hopelessly ineffective - Prevention of hospitalization/death - is also not great as was the case with the older varients.

Any article claiming that there is significant prevention of transmission - is lying.

 

The OP is about mandates except NY politicians.

 

My statement is accurate. It's not clear to me that vax immunity is stronger or more durable than natural immunity.

Our problem may be that vaxxed is not natural immunity equivalent.

 

It appears to be a badly written chart that is misleading. There is nothing an antibody can do to prevent a virus from entering the body. It has nothing at all to do with transmission. They can reduce the virus in the body. Because the antibodies reduce the viral load, the patient should have less severe symptoms or no symptoms at all (asymptomatic) because the virus is losing the war against the antibodies. They are capable of reducing virus in the body and, in most cases, eliminate them completely. With significantly fewer antibodies than required to win the war, the virus reproduction stays ahead of the antibodies and makes the infection more severe so that the patient may require hospitalization or could even die. The more antibodies the better.

The only thing a vaccine can do is help the body generate antibodies and antibodies are the only thing that can deal with a viral infection. I promise you they can't prevent transmission.

 

That's encouraging, especially the Israeli study that shows that every 20 point increase in adult vaxx halves children testing positive.

 

One can read a decent explanation of the whole thing here.

More likely the problem is that we are vaccinating against a delta strain with a vaccine designed for the alpha strain. It is somethiing like vaccinating people for last year's strain of influenza.

 

If you look at the bottom of the chart, it looks like they are assuming a high CT = won't transmit. I've seen other studies that show that vaxxed clear the virus faster with the infected person reaching >30 in ten days rather than 16 for the unvaxxed. And that was the line where it was presumed one was unlikely to spread it.

Here is what concerns me. Look at this chart: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/#cases-growth-factor

1 = population infection is stable, not getting better/not getting worse. Every infected person, on average, infects one person before the infection is resolved.
>1 - number of folks infected is increasing.
<1 - number of folks is decreasing.

A sign of success would be that the number stays below 1 for a period of time, dropping lower and lower and lower. Indeed, that was the expectation for the mass vaxx program.

Instead, we seem to have made no long term progress at all over the duration of millions recovered/vaxxed. And rather than grappling with this, we seem to have had the goal post moved to "fewer serious cases".

OK, then we should see a reduction in daily deaths.

Comparing Sept 1 to Sept 1, the 7 day average of daily deaths has climbed from 5800 to 9800 - a 70% increase. Clearly this is not the expected outcome.

Another concern: From the end of Sept to the end of Jan daily deaths tripled. Clearly this virus is more lethal in the winter months.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/worldwide-graphs/#daily-deaths

 

How does failing to meet expectations with MAX VAXX make it "more likely" that doubling down will give us the expected outcome?

Our 7 day average of daily deaths dropped last year through August/Sept from ~6,000/day to ~5,000 and then climbed to ~15,000 by the end of Jan.

This year the same measure has dropped from ~10,000 to ~8,000 through Sept, are we now going to triple by the end of January? Maybe along with Maxx Vaxx we should also have a similar intensity of focus and resources on improving treatment outcomes.

 

Hello delta strain.

 

Just realize that is not an explanation for why we had the expected outcome, that is an explanation for why we did not.

We operate within paradigms. Your paradigm is that VAXX will work. From that mindset confirming evidence will be very appealing and reinforcing while disconfirming evidence will be tend to be minimized and ignored, though as it becomes overwhelming and undeniable, the paradigm will be adjusted to incorporate it, protecting the basic assumption.

Paradigms can also reach a point where they collapse, generally when a new paradigm is formed that explains the evidence better.

When a paradigm is failing, the sooner that is recognized the more time, energy and resources are preserved to be applied to the new paradigm. As this is occurring, there will be those so deeply invested in the failing paradigm that they will employ extensive contortions in order to preserve it, doubling down, tripling down and so forth.

It's important to keep track of the fact that we have been steadily adjusting our expectations downward and that is not because this paradigm is performing well.

Fauci is a great example. No matter what new evidence comes in, his policy response will be MORE VAXX. He also conceals personal conflicts of interest. I don't know how a person builds a $3 to $10M net worth on a a salary in the low $300k/yr but he has. If he has income streams that connect to the companies that manufacture and/or distribute vaccines, he should be publicly disclosing this. Clearly he is position fixed on vaccines and being position fixed is blinding.

If daily deaths triple through the winter, like they did last year, and this year that baseline is starting at 160% of last year that will be undeniable at the end of January. Last year COVID killed another 1.3M people in that 4 month period. 160% of that would be over 2 million. If that is the outcome we will be facing at the end of January, and you knew that now, what would you do instead of what you have planned?

 

Really? Let's look again.

The bold is the heart of the OP. The same for the title. Nothing is brought up in post #1 about whether there are exemptions in the mandate, nor whether mandates should exist or not. It addresses only on whether or not there is evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission. Now that doesn't mean that Chris doesn't try to move the goal posts in his own thread later on. But that only means he thread jacked his own thread.

 

BMJ: Vaccinating people who have had covid-19: why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

Same question we have been asking the entire time of the position hardened "MO VAXX!" brigades.

Exactly the questions we have been asking.

Good info. We have been on top of this for months. When will this sink into the idiots at the CDC?

"“‘As we continued to put effort into vaccination and set targets, it became apparent to me that people were forgetting that herd immunity is formed by both natural immunity and vaccine immunity,’ says Klausner.”"

Yes. And if Vaxx immunity helps assure an easier path to natural immunity, by all means, if you are in a high risk group, at least get your first shot. If you have COVID after your first shot, maybe consult with a non vaxx positioned hardened MD before getting the second shot.