No, Vaccinated People Are Not ‘Just as Likely’ to Spread the Coronavirus as Unvaccinated People

[Reynolds]

I could say the same to you, many have given information re the covid deaths etc but those that do not want to accept it will not do so. Where I live we are now starting to triage the patients because of the numbers of covid cases. One hundred percent of the new cases in ICU are unvaxed but why would you believe the Drs when you can just listen to facebook or twitter.

Look up what CDC considers an unvaccinated death.

 

[JonC]

Look up what CDC considers an unvaccinated death.

Looks like what they consider a vacvinated death....minus having been vaccinated .

 

[Silverhair]

And if you can show me any, ANY proof, that, of 99% of the "data"(??) spouted by the experts, organizations, or press stories IS TRUTH, I would consider believing.
There has been so much flip-flopping on this that I don't believe anything I see anymore because of the political influence.

And I have to take it that you require that standard of proof for all that you do. Ya right.You do not want proof you want everyone to just think the way you do.

 

[Reynolds]

Looks like what they consider a vacvinated death....minus having been vaccinated .

Nope.
If a person contracts Covid within two weeks after receiving second dose, they are considered an unvaccinated case and if they later die, an unvaccinated death.

 

[JonC]

Nope.
If a person contracts Covid within two weeks after receiving second dose, they are considered an unvaccinated case and if they later die, an unvaccinated death.

No. They do discriminate between partially vaccinated, unvacvinated, and fully vaccinated.

But yes - if you get the second shot and get covid a week later then you contracted covid prior to being fully vaccinated. Vaccines are not effective the moment you get the shot. And that is an important point.

 

[just-want-peace]

The issue is not proof (there has not been flip flopping but rather science vs conspiracy). The studies have shown the vacvibes to be effective (varying among age groups, but still effective in every category). The proof is there. It just depends on whether people will accept or reject the evidence.

And that is an individual decision. But it is not correct to say there is no proof when there is an abundance of evidence. It is more correct to say you do not accept the evidence as proof for whatever reason.

As of yet no one has given me any criteria that I can use to tell me what claims from what org. is legitimate and which is politically infused!!!!!!!!!
You accepting does not make it true any more than refusing makes it true!
Can you answer my question with specifics rather than denigrating the question??

 

[Reformed1689]

As of yet no one has given me any criteria that I can use to tell me what claims from what org. is legitimate and which is politically infused!!!!!!!!!
You accepting does not make it true any more than refusing makes it true!
Can you answer my question with specifics rather than denigrating the question??

The government organizations were politicized very early on in this by people at the top. And they wonder why they are not trusted? Maybe if they gave consistent messaging they might still have credibility.

 

[JonC]

As of yet no one has given me any criteria that I can use to tell me what claims from what org. is legitimate and which is politically infused!!!!!!!!!
You accepting does not make it true any more than refusing makes it true!
Can you answer my question with specifics rather than denigrating the question??

I would start with the CDC. This is the gold standard and they link to individual studies within their website. You can also look at the FDA website (they have a library section). The Mayo clinic offers studies from their research group as does John Hopkins and The University of Maryland School of Medicine. There is also The New England Journal of Medicine. But these conclude the vaccines are effective (depending on your opinion you may not want to view their studies)

If you do not want to see studies concluding vaccines are effective you can read America's Frontline Doctors (which is a political website centered around "wholeistic" medicine), and welovetrump.com (which takes an anti-Trump stance on the vaccines).

It all depends on what you are seeking. If you are looking for science then I'd go with the CDC (most of the studies listed with the CDC are coming from research universities and front-line studies). If you are looking to strengthen a decision to reject the vacvines I'd go with welovetrump com.

I used the CDC website and just followed links to studies on that site.

 

[Reynolds]

No. They do discriminate between partially vaccinated, unvacvinated, and fully vaccinated.

But yes - if you get the second shot and get covid a week later then you contracted covid prior to being fully vaccinated. Vaccines are not effective the moment you get the shot. And that is an important point.

They are classified as unvaccinated. I heard ER Doctor on talk radio fussing about having to classify deaths that way.

 

[JonC]

I would start with the CDC. This is the gold standard and they link to individual studies within their website. You can also look at the FDA website (they have a library section). The Mayo clinic offers studies from their research group as does John Hopkins and The University of Maryland School of Medicine. There is also The New England Journal of Medicine. But these conclude the vaccines are effective (depending on your opinion you may not want to view their studies)

If you do not want to see studies concluding vaccines are effective you can read America's Frontline Doctors (which is a political website centered around "wholeistic" medicine), and welovetrump.com (which takes an anti-Trump stance on the vaccines).

It all depends on what you are seeking. If you are looking for science then I'd go with the CDC (most of the studies listed with the CDC are coming from research universities and front-line studies). If you are looking to strengthen a decision to reject the vacvines I'd go with welovetrump com.

They are classified as unvaccinated. I heard ER Doctor on talk radio fussing about having to classify deaths that way.

Well....they are not fully vaccinated. I know their numbers have a list of partially vaccinated which is one shot up to less than 2 weeks after the second.

But it makes sense to classify them as unvacvinated, even though it makes raises the survivability rate for the completely unvacvinated.

 

[just-want-peace]

And I have to take it that you require that standard of proof for all that you do. Ya right.You do not want proof you want everyone to just think the way you do.

Well, you are living proof that "white hair" (assuming your handle is accurate) DOES not equate to WISDOM!
Seems you & Jon make a great tag team.
Can't get a straight answer from either of you; basically you both have said, "If you want more proof that I've given, then you are not interested in PROOF, you just want someone to agree with you!" Not in these words, but by snide comments AND innuendo!!
Oh, and JFTR, O Wise one(?) I've had the vax, so I really don't have a dog in this squabble EXCEPT for the intrusion of politics that that now holds this bug over the American head like a Sword of Damocles.
And while there is fierce discussion on both sides, "whether to vax or not to vax" the bulk of accusations seem to me to come from the pro-vax side ; not all, but the most. And as well the pros tend to trust whatever the medical orgs say far more than the antis, and denigrate t'other side far more the antis. Perfect example of last sentence is your reply to my asking proof of your claims and getting snide remarks and your attack on my character!

We have had one poster leave the BB because of garbage like this, and there may soon be another!!
Should this happen enough, then you will have just what you accuse me of per your quote- "--everyone to just think the way you do."!

 

[JonC]

Well, you are living proof that "white hair" (assuming your handle is accurate) DOES not equate to WISDOM!
Seems you & Jon make a great tag team.
Can't get a straight answer from either of you; basically you both have said, "If you want more proof that I've given, then you are not interested in PROOF, you just want someone to agree with you!" Not in these words, but by snide comments AND innuendo!!
Oh, and JFTR, O Wise one(?) I've had the vax, so I really don't have a dog in this squabble EXCEPT for the intrusion of politics that that now holds this bug over the American head like a Sword of Damocles.
And while there is fierce discussion on both sides, "whether to vax or not to vax" the bulk of accusations seem to me to come from the pro-vax side ; not all, but the most. And as well the pros tend to trust whatever the medical orgs say far more than the antis, and denigrate t'other side far more the antis. Perfect example of last sentence is your reply to my asking proof of your claims and getting snide remarks and your attack on my character!

We have had one poster leave the BB because of garbage like this, and there may soon be another!!
Should this happen enough, then you will have just what you accuse me of per your quote- "--everyone to just think the way you do."!

How so? You asked me to provide where I got my data and I did. The studies on the CDC website.

I'll look some up and give you an example, just give me a bit.

 

[JonC]

COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Research | CDC

Monitoring Incidence of COVID-19 Cases...

Vaccinated vs. unvaccinated: How sick can you get?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

New data dashboard tracks COVID-19 risk for unvaccinated people compared to vaccinated people – PUBLIC HEALTH INSIDER

Vaccine Research Center Clinical Studies

 

[Reformed1689]

I would start with the CDC. This is the gold standard and they link to individual studies within their website. You can also look at the FDA website (they have a library section). The Mayo clinic offers studies from their research group as does John Hopkins and The University of Maryland School of Medicine. There is also The New England Journal of Medicine. But these conclude the vaccines are effective (depending on your opinion you may not want to view their studies)

If you do not want to see studies concluding vaccines are effective you can read America's Frontline Doctors (which is a political website centered around "wholeistic" medicine), and welovetrump.com (which takes an anti-Trump stance on the vaccines).

It all depends on what you are seeking. If you are looking for science then I'd go with the CDC (most of the studies listed with the CDC are coming from research universities and front-line studies). If you are looking to strengthen a decision to reject the vacvines I'd go with welovetrump com.

I used the CDC website and just followed links to studies on that site.

@JonC do you believe the government on everything with climate science?

 

[Dave G]

@JonC :

Using the history of influenza, we should be able to predict ( with reasonable accuracy ), the outcome of variants and vaccines related to the SARS-COV2 virus.
Virus variants don't seem to care all that much about vaccines that were designed to combat "the old model", and neither will subsequent variants of SARS-COV2 care about any vaccines that were developed to combat "delta".

Based on this, I would say, "Yes, vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the coronvirus as unvaccinated people", Jon.

IMO, the recent outbreak of COVID-19 in Barnstable County, Massachusetts this past summer has already confirmed this.
Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, including COVID-19 ...
Barnstable Covid-19 Outbreak: Fully Vaccinated Can Spread Coronavirus Delta Variant, Says CDC

Vaccinated people who were vaccinated using the current vaccines, do indeed spread the variants of the virus;
and vaccine status makes no difference either way.

I'm also fairly sure that there are studies on both sides of this that are trying with all their might to determine what is, essentially, going to hold similar to influenza...when all is said and done.

SARS-COV2 is here to stay, and trying to get control of it will only serve to be the same lesson in futility as influenza has been.
People are still dying almost everyday from it, and will continue to get sick and even die from it years from now;
Mandating vaccines will change nothing, and mandating masks and "social distancing" will not make it go away...

The same as influenza.

 

[JonC]

@JonC :

Using the history of influenza, we should be able to predict ( with reasonable accuracy ), the outcome of variants and vaccines related to the SARS-COV2 virus.
Virus variants don't seem to care all that much about vaccines that were designed to combat "the old model", and neither will subsequent variants care about any vaccines that were developed to combat "delta".

Based on this, I would say, "Yes, vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the coronvirus as unvaccinated people", Jon.

IMO, the recent outbreak of COVID-19 in Barnstable County, Massachusetts this past summer has already confirmed this.
Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, including COVID-19 ...
Barnstable Covid-19 Outbreak: Fully Vaccinated Can Spread Coronavirus Delta Variant, Says CDC

But I'm equally sure that there are studies on both sides of this that are trying with all their might to determine what is, essentially, going to hold similar to influenza...
when all is said and done.

SARS-COV2 is here to stay, and trying to get control of it will only serve to be the same lesson in futility as influenza has been.
People are still dying almost everyday from it, and will continue to get sick and even die from it years from now;
Mandating vaccines will change nothing, and mandating masks and "social distancing" will not make it go away...

The same as influenza.

I also see covid vaccines as here to stay, and I agree with your illustration of influenza with a few important exceptions - covid is more contageous, more deadly, with more serious effects. We see this in the numbers (there have been flu deaths, but measures have reduced the flu...as we knew they would). But covid deaths have been severe, not just to the elderly.

That said, I just agree with you but I can't say you are correct....I leave that up to the experts.

Edit: science has shown not only that but why vaccinated people are less likely to spread covid.

 

[Reformed1689]

I also see covid vaccines as here to stay, and I agree with your illustration of influenza with a few important exceptions - covid is more contageous, more deadly, with more serious effects.

That said, I just agree with you but I can't say you are correct....I leave that up to the experts.

We don't know that it is more deadly or more contagious. Flu rates went down over the last year and a half. Why? BC they are being counted as COVID. We also know not all covid death count numbers are legitimate.

 

[Dave G]

I also see covid vaccines as here to stay, and I agree with your illustration of influenza with a few important exceptions - covid is more contageous, more deadly, with more serious effects. We see this in the numbers (there have been flu deaths, but measures have reduced the flu...as we knew they would). But covid deaths have been severe, not just to the elderly.

I agree, to an extent.

But ultimately, all the discussion around it is, in all likelihood and from my viewpoint, going to result in nothing more or less than what happened in 1918-1919...
A severe outbreak of a virus that killed many, followed by "herd immunity".
Government restrictions and mandates or no, will make no difference.

To me, most of the discussion I've seen here on the BB and in other venues, is all rather pointless.
SARS-COV2 is here to stay, and no matter what is said or done about it, trying to control it is also pointless.
I would think that the "Spanish Flu" outbreak 100 years ago would have served to punctuate this...
H1N1 is still around, my friend. The only thing that changed was the name..."Swine Flu" in 2009.

No amount of vaccines or other methods of control have come close to eradicating it.

That said, why are Christians continuing to debate this, when they should be looking to their Saviour for deliverance?
I confess that I'm a bit confused...

I see you on one side as a proponent of vaccines, mandates, etc ( perhaps I'm in error, please correct me if so ).
I see others on the other side against those things, and the debate rages on, and on, and on.


What ( or better yet, Who ) is being left out of the discussion?

 

[JonC]

I agree, to an extent.

But ultimately, all the discussion around it is, in all likelihood from my viewpoint, going to result in nothing more or less that what happened in 1918-1919...
A severe outbreak of a virus that killed many, followed by "herd immunity"... government restrictions and mandates or no, will make no difference.

To me, most of the discussion I've seen here on the BB and in other venues, is all rather pointless.
SARS-COV2 is here to stay, and no matter what is said or done about it, trying to control it is also pointless.
I would think that the "Spanish Flu" outbreak 100 years ago would have served to punctuate this...
H1N1 is still around, my friend. The only thing that changed was the name..."Swine Flu" in 2009.

No amount of vaccines or other methods of control have come close to eradicating it.

That said, why are Christians continuing to debate this, when they should be looking to their Saviour for deliverance?
I confess that I'm a bit confused.

I see you on one side as a proponent of vaccines, mandates, etc.
I see others on the other side against it, and the debate rages on.

What ( or better yet, Who ) is being left out of the discussion?

I don't see how we can have it both ways. If covid mutates and these mutations become varients (like influenza) then herd immunity is out of reach. If, however, covid is different and we can reach herd immunity...similar to the measles....then the safest way is via vaccination.

I am not for or against mandates. I think employers should define their own criteria. That said, because of the information made avaliable on the BB I have less of an issue with mandates. I still think it government overreach.

 

[Dave G]

I don't see how we can have it both ways. If covid mutates and these mutations become varients (like influenza) then herd immunity is out of reach. If, however, covid is different and we can reach herd immunity...similar to the measles....then the safest way is via vaccination.

I think you're missing my point:

What ( or better yet, Who ) is being left out of the discussion?