"High rate" means compared to unvaccinated spread. The spread between the vaccinated will not be as high as the spread between the unvaccinated. But again, it doesn't matter about spread if the severeness is reduced. Your argument here is that because another country can do XYZ that we should do XYZ. But that's a poor argument. If another country allows people to spit on other people... we still shouldn't. Using someone else as a proxy for what you think we should do or not do is not a valid argument. Further, you're concluding with certainty that the other will occur. You've already concluded that 100% vaccination won't be effective, therefore we shouldn't do it. But when has vaccination at those levels ever failed? The answer is never. Vaccines only fail to produce the desired effect when utilization isn't sufficiently high enough. Like now.
And without vaccination do you think it would have still only been half? Or would it have been higher?
Pretty sure the US is still at or below 70% vaccination rate, which we know with mathematical certainty isn't enough to stop shit in terms of transmission. That wouldn't have stopped polio or smallpox or anything else.
We also didn't stop polio or smallpox by first ensuring that everyone came up in vaccination numbers at the same time. Indy wants to pretend that when we were fighting polio, we all did it at the same time. It's preposterous to think that we shouldn't have vaccinated for polio, because a bunch of other countries weren't at the high enough rates yet. They got there, for the most part. It didn't happen all at once, and sometimes, leaders have to be first.
Could Scott Peterson just be a terrible husband but not a murdering husband? Did he get railroaded on circumstantial evidence?
So I guess Ethan Crumbley’s parents hired their own lawyer and left him to get a court-appointed one? I’m not defending him in the least, but I can definitely see how that kid turned out [uck fay]ed up
Triage, I suppose. The kid is going to have serious consequences. The parents may be able to successfully make a jury believe they did nothing criminal.
What data do you have that supports your claim in this hypothetical that breakthroughs are happening at the same rate with the current variant as they did with the previous variant?
Does it matter? You said "if the vaccinated individual doesn't spread it, at a high rate, to other vaccinated, then a breakthrough infection is stalled. And a stalled infectious disease is not a transmitting infectious disease." This example flies in the face of your point.
No, it's really not. If I'm driving 90 mph on the interstate, and you pass me going 130 mph, we are both driving at a high rate. The fact that your rate is higher doesn't diminish the fact that my rate is still high. My point has been that a mandate, in a lot of ways, is losing it's usefulness because unless we can control the world population's vaccine rate, we can't really control the virus. You've brought up things like stopping new variants. Which variant has started in the US?
I didn't present or reference data. I showed you that one would expect more breakthrough cases as the vaccinated population increases. If you have data, feel free to share it.
We don't surveil for variants very much here, and variants can emerge independently. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-are-new-coronavirus-variants-emerging-u-s-n1254454 Your opinions are not based on a good understanding of the situation.
Yeah, I got that, as indicated by my response. Your entire scenario is based on the idea that the rate is the same. That's not a fair assumption, at this point.
My title says otherwise. The bottom line is that full vaccination rate here does not prevent new variants from popping up elsewhere. And if those new variants are good at spreading, even in the vaccinated, they will still hit us.
No, we are not both driving at a high rate. You imagine that that is a high rate because there is a speed limit. Your analogy falls apart because there isn't a "limit" in viral spreed. To demonstrate the incorrectness, compared to a fighter jet... both our 90 and 130 are very slow. So yes, my rate being higher does diminish the fact that your rate is not high. Because, again, we're operating in a world without a limit. A mandate does not lose its usefulness at any point, it is as useful as any other "don't hit people" mandate. If 99.9% of everyone I hit didn't even notice, a mandate that said I shouldn't hit would still be valid. I've brought up variants as examples. It isn't limited to just those, and we don't survey enough to know whether we are creating variants or not. Why, however, would you think that we are unique, and incapable of creating variants?
No, it does not. It fits the point exactly. It demonstrates that the vaccine works. Which is all that is necessary to make it a mandate.
This is not binary. rates and degrees matter. What you are saying is true of polio too, and yet it only exists in a few places in the world and does not readily break out because of vaccination.
No assumption is required for what I laid out to demonstrate that one would EXPECT an increase in breakthroughs. Let me go further. As the population of vaccinated increases, it is a mathematical certainty that the number of breakthroughs will increase. And it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RATE. That's the point. The whole [uck fay]ing point. Even if the rates are static for populations, the number of breakthroughs would increase. Because MATH.
Wow, this might be the most bull shitty bull shit I've ever seen you post. And that's saying something. Comparing the rate of a car to that of a fighter jet is ridiculous. They aren't the same vehicle and they don't have the same capabilities. That's 100% baked into the cake of the statement. No one says "Usain Bolt is slow because look how fast light can move!" I'm picturing you sitting with your son at a NASCAR race, and when he says, "Wow dad, those cars are driving really fast!" you reply, "Well son, their rate is actually quite slow... have you ever seen a fighter jet?" Saying that a car traveling 90 mph (or 130 mph, or 200 mph) isn't traveling at a high rate because fighter jets travel significantly faster is as ridiculous as saying fighter jets don't travel at a high rate because space shuttles travel significantly faster. It's just nonsense. And, ultimately, in your world without limits, the rate of spread amongst unvaccinated is not "high" because it could be significantly higher. It's just higher than that amongst the vaccinated. Your argument is self defeating. The hitting example is and has been stupid, yet you keep bringing it up. Mandating that you can't hit people isn't limiting your freedoms in any way. Mandating that you can't hit people is not comparable to mandating that people must inject a substance into their bodies that they don't want to inject into their bodies.
I have to stop you here. Did you not use cars as an analogy for population spread of a virus? And then you say this? Are you seeing what you are typing?
