Study shows vaccination and masking don’t work to stop Covid

amother

Aster

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 10:54 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

The discussion here is about vaccination and masking stopping Covid from spreading, which in this case it clearly did not.

True, the nurses got a milder version of the virus but a lot of the patients did not. Nearly 20% got severely ill and eight died. That’s a pretty high failure rate for a vaccine.

When I said in my op that it goes to show that the mandates are mostly political and not science-based, it’s true. What is sad is how many comments on this site echo the baseless claims made in the newspapers and news channels that it is the unvaccinated who are to blame for the spread of Covid. This study proves that is absolutely false.

There was an entire thread recently in which many imamothers were expressing outrage and indignation towards the unvaccinated who were “putting others in danger” and are “selfish and care only about themselves”. They have completely bought into the propaganda that the media outlets and these mandates have generated. As this study has proven it is SINAS CHINAM, and not any medical or scientific reason, when you distance yourself from and exclude the unvaccinated.

I don’t think it is sinas chinam to distance myself from people who are more likely to be infected.
Hug me if you will.

LovesHashem

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 11:16 am

amother [ Blonde ] wrote:

This is moving the goalpost. In the early days of convincing everyone to get vaxed, they never said anything about milder versions, they said it would protect you from contracting or transmitting. Does no one even remember that? It wasn't even a year ago.

I always remember being told it was 95 percent effective.

Now we see that number wanes. I trust in Hashem and not in a vaccine. The vaccine is hishtadlus I did, just like a seatbelt. A seatbelt doesn’t protect 100 percent and in some cases has actually killed people.

That doesn’t mean seatbelt a don’t work or we we’re lied to.

amother

Tiffanyblue

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 11:20 am

LovesHashem wrote:

A seatbelt isnt invasive and doesnt include putting experimental drugs in your body so its a false equivalence.

ora_43

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 11:26 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

The discussion here is about vaccination and masking stopping Covid from spreading, which in this case it clearly did not.

This is a straw man. When has anyone said that vaccination and masking stop Covid from spreading?

They slow the spread. They reduce the odds of transmission. That's all anyone has ever claimed. (hint: what does the "95" in N95 stand for?)

ora_43

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 11:33 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Their only worth may be in reducing the severity of Covid in those infected but this study proves that they clearly do nothing to stop the spread of the virus.

No, it really doesn't. It doesn't even claim to be trying to do that.

To prove that vaccines and masks don't stop spread, you'd have to compare multiple vaccine + masked scenarios to multiple scenarios in which most people were unvaccinated + unmasked.

amother

Blonde

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 11:36 am

LovesHashem wrote:

You also don't lose anything by wearing a seatbelt. If the vaccines were completely safe, I would agree with you.

amother

Blonde

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 11:38 am

ora_43 wrote:

Nope. We were told to mask and sd in the early days to slow the spread. We were told the vaccines are 97% effective. Now we ask, effective at what? LOL

Sadly lots of assumptions were made and repeated that 97% effective means what it sounds like, that the vaccine works like the measles, polio or small pox vaccine and is 97% effective at both preventing future infection and preventing transmission.

Many people had questions about these claims from the start based on the design of the trials. Ex. used only healthy, low risk people participated in the trials, the trials had lower death rates than the general population, etc. So we had trials with claims that were essentially nonsensical, then we made things even better by unblinding the trials!

Now we want to rewrite history and say, well, it's not really 97% effective, it's maybe only 42% but that's because of delta, but hey we never said the protection wouldn't wane in 6 months (which is really less than 5 months because you're not "fully" protected until 2 weeks post second shot and you're actually more susceptible to severe illness from covid for 4-6 weeks post first shot), and also, when we said effective we didn't mean prevents transmission or illness, we only meant serious illness, and only in young healthy people who are at low risk for serious illness in any case...

amother

Ballota

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 11:46 am

Yes op and it would all be okay and part of a learning curve were it not being used to control us politically in ways that are not science and logic based.

Like in communist countries few trust or want to get their info from state media anymore. Sad state of affairs. Thanks for reaching out here.

wiki

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 11:47 am

amother [ Blonde ] wrote:

You also don't lose anything by wearing a seatbelt. If the vaccines were completely safe, I would agree with you.

Except that there certainly are documented reports of people being killed by their seatbelts. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p.....8342/

amother

Blonde

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 11:49 am

amother [ Almond ] wrote:

Nothing in life is "completely safe." Not even the air you breathe. "Completely safe" argument is meant to instill fear and distrust.
Making vaccines into a black and white decision is a mistake. Sometimes we have to go with best option even if there's risk.

Ok, I'll reword that. Safe to the same extent that we expect our regulating agencies to guarantee the safety of all other drugs or vaccines. This is the problem here.

Side point. Denmark, Sweden and Norway have now halted Moderna for young men, and Iceland has banned it for everyone. All due to risk of heart inflammation. Why are US regulators not concerned?

wiki

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 11:51 am

Some people seem to be missing the part where in the past few months, immunity from vaccines (esp. Pfizer) has waned, but the strain of the virus going around has been a type that is far, far worse in its contagiousness and severity of symptoms, especially for the unvaccinated.

The case fatality rate for the Delta variant among unvaccinated people in hard-hit states like Louisiana and Alabama has been very, very high in the past few months.

So, while the protection offered by the vaccines has been less than before, the need for antibodies and protection from infection is currently quite a lot higher than it was before.

The comparisons to the fall of 2020 are not apples to apples, and they're not even apples to oranges; they're mangoes to oranges.

amother

Tangerine

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 11:58 am

amother [ Almond ] wrote:

Other vaccines also work like this and have been mostly effective. Like pertussis.
It's a new virus and they're trying their best. Give them a break.
Yes, vaccinated people will get sick less often and therefore will infect people less often.
That is a successful vaccine in the meantime.

I would give them a break if they didn't force me to get injected with. If they dont know 100% what they are doing why are they forcing people to get it or lose their jobs? It doesn't go both ways.

amother

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 12:00 pm

amother [ Aster ] wrote:

I don’t think it is sinas chinam to distance myself from people who are more likely to be infected.
Hug me if you will.

That is exactly the point of this post. The unvaccinated are NOT more likely to be infected. If you believe that it’s because you have been misinformed. This study and other studies are evidence that the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are EQUALLY susceptible to being infected.

amother

Blonde

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 12:03 pm

wiki wrote:

Yes, pre-vaccine, at the same time last year, we had lower case rates, hospitalizations and deaths. Doesn't that beg some questions? We haven't ruled out that these more virulent strains aren't driven by the vaccines.

ora_43

Sun, Oct 10 2021, 12:06 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

This study is looking specifically at a group that was 96% vaccinated.

Strange, that with all of the many studies out there on transmission in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, you're choosing to look specifically at a study that doesn't compare the two and trying to 'learn out' from that.