> Why do you hold this view when we know that vaccination does not prevent
infection and transmission? Why do you hold this view when we know that vaccination does not prevent infection and transmission? The recent Lancet paper found that the vaccinated had the same viral load as the unvaccinated

Interesting, you sure that this is not another case when you selectively resort on something that fits your beliefs? Have you seen this
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v1.full
"Vaccination reduces transmission of Delta, but by less than the Alpha variant. The impact of vaccination decreased over time. Factors other than PCR-measured viral load are important in vaccine-associated transmission reductions. Booster vaccinations may help control transmission together with preventing infections."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260393v1
"Using the model of household transmission, we estimated that receipt of two doses of the vaccine was associated with an age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness against susceptibility to infection (VES) of 80.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 78.9%, 82.1%) and a vaccine effectiveness against infectiousness given infection (VEI) of 41.3% (95% CI: 9.5%, 73.0%). The vaccine effectiveness against transmission (VET), which combines the reduction in the risk of infection and the risk of infectiousness given infection among vaccinated individuals, was estimated to be 88.5% (95% CI: 82.3%, 94.8%)."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.14.21264959v1.full-text
"Our results indicate that vaccination confers protection against onward transmission from vaccinated index cases, albeit somewhat less for Delta than for Alpha. Vaccine effectiveness against transmission to unvaccinated household contacts is stronger than to vaccinated household contacts, with the latter already largely protected from infection, and especially from severe disease, by their own vaccine-induced immunity, but differences in risk behavior may also play a role. Possible waning of vaccine effectiveness against infection and against onward transmission could result in increases in SARS-CoV-2 circulation among populations with high vaccine coverage. As full vaccination remains highly effective in preventing severe disease, also for Delta, a high vaccination coverage remains the key to control the COVID-19 pandemic"

Second - and this goes to all of you - vax-concerned, vax-obsessed and anti-vax people, should be also a good self-test for everyone keeping strong opinions on any particular topic. Ask yourself - can data change my mind? what data would change my mind? can such data even exist? Is it possible to get to such data right know? am I already too strongly invested in my opinion that it's not a opinion anymore - it's faith? because we well know that there's no way we can convince faithful with data - ask flat earthers.

> However, genuinely, I cannot find evidence so many football players were collapsing before.

Sure, there was also no pandemic like this before at least in my lifetime. Was it vaccine? Was it infection? Have they been covid-ill before? Or maybe it is regime change after long lockdowns? You are quite quick to jump to conclusions, I would say - this is something of concern - let the doctors investigate and come out with their conclusions.

> But if I am right, what then? If this phenomenon has been increasing post vaccine, we should surely stop forcing (and this is happening) young people to have it until a thorough investigation has been carried out, vai nee?

But if you are wrong, what then? Should we wait 1,3, 5 years? 10 years before we totally sure? Do we know long term impact on kids that have been ill with covid? That's how it was before - vaccines had very long and very expensive testing periods. Nothing of this is like normal, like before, not covid itself, not speed with which vaccines have been developer/rolled out, not amount of research that have become open sourced, freely available on internet for everyone to see, follow, deep dive in. New times, strange times, uncertain times, scary times.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Mate, regarding "Second - and this goes to all of you - vax-concerned, vax-obsessed and anti-vax people, should be also a good self-test for everyone keeping strong opinions on any particular topic. Ask yourself - can data change my mind?"

Good question, but you just sent me links to three papers, none of which were peer-reviewed. I don't want to be a snob about this, but, you know, the one in the Lancet was peer reviewed (I assume anyway) and found that "that vaccination is not sufficient to prevent transmission of the delta variant in household settings with prolonged exposures. (fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts)".

You could swap 'household' for 'workplace' in many cases (shared office/workshop/toilets and so on.


One other quick question: should, in your opinion, the vaccine be mandatory for work for those who have already had Covid?

Regarding the second question, you are right, we haven't has anything like this before, but

1) We have had it for two years, one year of which we did not have a vaccine.

2) Pro football continued all that year (just without fans), so the players stayed fit. Moreover, many tested positive during this time.

3) I believe that they are collapsing post vaccine - so not during the first year of the pandemic without the vaccine - but in the second half of the year post vaccine. I certainly don't remember anyone keeling over on the pitch pre vaccine (but post Covid outbreak). If they were, I would be grateful if someone could find the evidence. Like I said (and in answer to your question): that would change my mind.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Mate, have you actually have read this Lancet paper (I assume this is the one you are referring to)?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext

"Findings

The SAR in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals. The median time between second vaccine dose and study recruitment in fully vaccinated contacts was longer for infected individuals (median 101 days [IQR 74–120]) than for uninfected individuals (64 days [32–97], p=0·001). SAR among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% [95% CI 15–35] for vaccinated vs 23% [15–31] for unvaccinated). 12 (39%) of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases, further confirmed by genomic and virological analysis in three index case–contact pairs. Although peak viral load did not differ by vaccination status or variant type, it increased modestly with age (difference of 0·39 [95% credible interval –0·03 to 0·79] in peak log10 viral load per mL between those aged 10 years and 50 years). Fully vaccinated individuals with delta variant infection had a faster (posterior probability >0·84) mean rate of viral load decline (0·95 log10 copies per mL per day) than did unvaccinated individuals with pre-alpha (0·69), alpha (0·82), or delta (0·79) variant infections. Within individuals, faster viral load growth was correlated with higher peak viral load (correlation 0·42 [95% credible interval 0·13 to 0·65]) and slower decline (–0·44 [–0·67 to –0·18]).


Interpretation

Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts. Host–virus interactions early in infection may shape the entire viral trajectory."

I guess I have spent a lot of time on this discussion and my point remains - are you ever going to consider changing your mind? Do you seek evidence or just cherrypick bites and pieces that you like and and ignore parts you don't like? Internet is beautiful place and you will always be able to find your support group - even if it's total nonsense.

I know nothing about pro football so I kindly will show myself out.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

My question still stands: if vaccination does not prevent (but can reduce slightly (depending on the variant) for a period of time) transmission, do you think it should be mandatory for working with other people?

This question still stands regarding young people. Should they be discriminated against (work, education etc) if they refuse to take this injection against a disease that we know they stand very little chance of needing a hospital bed for? Or should it be optional - and without coercion?

As you and I both are aware, it is foggy with regard to vaccine side-effects and the findings of papers change with time as this great experiment moves forward. However, if you - or anyone else - can't find evidence of athletes collapsing in comparable numbers pre-vaccine - then I will not change my mind regarding my concerns. If they can, then I will: that is a promise.

Finally, frankly speaking - and this is a concession to you - I am sceptical about our great organisations. I think some have been captured by the Big Pharma companies (through donations and revolving doors), and I have seen what happens to scientists and doctors who break ranks (vilification, ridicule etc.). This won't convince you, and it will probably just confirm your suspicions, however, that is how it is: let me be honest.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

> My question still stands: if vaccination does not prevent (but can reduce slightly (depending on the variant) for a period of time) transmission, do you think it should be mandatory for working with other people?

Yes. Although I do not agree how you are making loaded questions. (prevent vs guarantee, sligthly vs significantly).

> This question still stands regarding young people. Should they be discriminated against (work, education etc) if they refuse to take this injection against a disease that we know they stand very little chance of needing a hospital bed for? Or should it be optional - and without coercion?

You are asking me - I would vote for optional vaccination for kinds under 16 (or 18). Or are you asking Boris or Kariņš? They have to make some short-term policy decisions (like lockdowns, mandates and discrimination measures) to balance surge of hospitalizations andeaths in older people (in many cases caused by transmissions from young people) with consequences that can affect long-term lives of many younger people. I don't envy them (whatever decision they take) and I'm certainly not qualified enough to speak for their medical advisors and scientists involved.d

> it is foggy with regard to vaccine side-effects

and with regard of getting sick with covid side-effects which you are very keen to dismiss/avoid to ask questions/think about?

>Finally, frankly speaking - and this is a concession to you - I am
sceptical about our great organisations. I think some have been captured
by the Big Pharma companies (through donations and revolving doors), and
I have seen what happens to scientists and doctors who break ranks
(vilification, ridicule etc.). This won't convince you, and it will
probably just confirm your suspicions, however, that is how it is: let me
be honest.

I'm sorry I wasted your and my time, trying to argue against your beliefs. You are sceptical about pharma so also about doctors & research (meanwhile not sceptical enough quoting parts of it when it matches your concerns). So be it. Live long and prosper, I'm out :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Okay, bye.

For the record, I don't agree with you about mandatory injection. It should be encouraged, in my opinion, for those who are in risk groups as the sole argument for the state getting involved is the pressure on the health service. The govt should also do what it can to protect the risk groups as the virus works its way through the population (as much as possible through those with good immune systems who can deal with it much better).

The rest of us should be encouraged to eat well, exercise, and ensure we have plenty of Vitamin D in the winter months. This will help alleviate pressure on the health service. - much better than being constantly scared shitless by the TV and told that injection is the only answer (oh and stay home).

The virus will make its way through the vaccinated and unvaccinated whatever we do. The rate of protection it might give for a period of time is not, in my opinion, sufficient for it to be made mandatory. We are already seeing the reintroduction of restrictions and so on in heavily vaccinated states. People, who are healthy and/or already have naturally acquired immunity are being made second-class systems for not taking a concoction which does not effectively prevent transmission and which could have life-threatening side effects.

It should, clearly, by their choice.

I am sceptical about Big Pharma because it is a business, and if you look how much money is sent on organisations like the WHO and media outlets by the Gates Foundation and Gavi, you might be too.

But okay, you are not going to change your mind either. Live long and prosper, yourself - unless you play an active role in forcing this on me or my family: in which case, watch out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Vecīt, nopietni? Tu izstājies pie visnekontroversiālākā punkta, kas ir pielīdzināms truismam, par Big Pharma un starptautisko organizāciju bezizmēra korupciju?

Še, atslābsti, brīvā brīdī iepazīsties ar beisikiem: https://brownstone.org/articles/the-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-monopoly-the-backstory/
Par farmācijas industrijas korupciju labi apkopots šeit otrā pusē https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/needle-points-vaccinations-chapter-two

Pfizers nesen samaksāja 2.3 miljardu dolāru sodu. Tā ir ceturtdaļa no LV gada budžeta.

(Reply to this) (Parent)