Oh dear me, listen to the lawyer!
Didn't say that - LV your reading comprehension is shocking when you don’t want to read things properly.
And you need to start making your points in good faith instead of intentionally misreading people and pisstaking after which is exactly what you did there.
Lawyers are known for understanding detail, when they are so used to delving in it, they know how easy it is for people to think they’re across something when they really aren’t
. Read: that’s you now.
Maybe some people understand the concept of "you don’t know what you don’t know".
Where does that play now? You’re playing internet doctor and when someone says that doesn’t replace - you know - actual expertise, you pull the elitist card (which would be more effective if the person is claiming to have expertise opposed to calling out your lack of)
You need a big warning symbol on your posts which say “unsubstantiated opinion with a heavy dose of ego”.
Because you’re not just chucking your opinion in - which would be absolutely fair on a forum.
You’re doing this:
I didn't criticise anyone about the detail- I was merely suggesting rjd needed to be across some detail to draw conclusions about hospitalization risk and long covid in young people.
That is 1) criticising on detail; 2) you’re not across the details, you’re just pretending you are; 3) the risk you haven’t even used a helpful statistic, you used risk of catching, not risk of an infection being symptomatic, hospitalisation, mortality.
You know, the ones I posted for you that are widely available and broadly agreed for now and have no baring on the stat you pulled out.
You then argued peripherally about hospital capacity. Your argument is a messy slippery slope that muddies the water.
Argue against #1 by providing a completely unrelated point #2. I tried to bring you back to the core point by providing stats that were actually relevant for you.
On effectiveness of vaccines against spread, its now widely recognised that herd immunity is impossible
You’re not reading - it helps to read before you respond.
I’m not arguing about herd immunity and whether it can be achieved.
You were talking about risk of catching, I said that relates mostly to the amount of people vaccinated, not the effectiveness of the vaccines.
Vaccines for the most part are based on protecting people for when they get infected. Not preventing infection in the first place.
Does it provide an element of prevention? A little - but the correlation for preventing infection is about the baseline numbers of people vaccinated. Otherwise called colloquially as “herd immunity”.
You linked that with symptomatic response, hospitalisation. They don’t link like that from an effectiveness stand point. Ie, your 39% figure doesn’t negate the ~85% effectiveness in preventing hospitalisation.
Ive been trying to get you understand that point. You’re being misleading to people on here and then calling people out about not being “properly across the details”.
You also criticised veracity vs real world scenario, but 1) effectiveness hasn’t been studied beyond an antibodies level all that much; and 2) your stat was on infection not effectiveness; and 3) the results you’ve come up with are based on a number well below the baseline being vaccinated, so the stat isn’t helpful in drawing the conclusion you’ve been drawing.
So your stat is “low number of people are fully vaccinated means lots of people get infected”.
The answer? No shit Sherlock. As I’ve posted before, the affect is a wild fire where those vaccinated and not symptomatic spread it and those not fully vaccinated get sick and hospitalised and it can’t be traced easily therefore hard to control.
Until you achieve baseline numbers, that will occur. That has been made clear day after day after day.
and that "breakthrough infections" are happening much more than was anticipated several months ago. It's a misnomer really, given the thousands upon thousands of vaccinated people catching and spreading covid in UK, Israel, USA etc.
Don’t say misnomer - it’s not one and if it was you wouldn’t be in a place of knowledge to know it. You can’t say “herd immunity is impossible” as proven by countries that never achieved herd immunity levels of vaccination.
You know, as I already told you that Israel’s levels aren’t there.
Is it possible to vaccinate faster than strains mutate? We don’t know - maybe not likely.
Which leads me to this wonderfully accurate post:
It's often better to know nothing than to know just enough to be dangerous & arrogant.
Usually there are basic, broadly agreed aspects by the relevant expert community. Some people want to go to the knitty gritty like LV has and decided to then go “that’s inaccurate”.
What happens? A false sense of understanding and arrogance and stubbornly uses the information in a way that ends up departing in accuracy even further from the broadly agreed simplistic information.
So someone like RJD goes “hang on, what?” and LV reacts with a verbal spiel on criticism about legitimacy and detail as if he’s spent the last 10 years experienced in epidemiology and respiratory disease.
That’s very different to proffering an opinion.