Sorry that I don't have a better source for it
Reducing the symptoms if someone is actually infected is fantastic. You know what would be way more impressive? If the vaccines actually stopped the spread of COVID-19. The way I'm reading this and Fauci's statements about having equal viral load is that the unvaccinated and vaccinated both spread the virus, likely at the same rate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9839697/Fauci-say...
Guess we won't be able to blame the unvaccinated for recent spread anymore.
Covid outbreaks are not a good thing, not sure why you would claim that? Even when they demonstrate the relative effectiveness of the vaccines.
> you know what would be way more impressive? If the vaccines actually stopped the spread of COVID-19
Again, I'm no sure what your point is. Given that we have 80% effective vaccines, what should we do, use them or not?
> Guess we won't be able to blame the unvaccinated for recent spread anymore.
To be clear, are you suggesting that _lower_ vaccination rates would result in less spread of COVID? Yeah, have another think about that.
The rest of the diagram is just arithmetic. The results are counter-intuitive, but it's not calculus.
FYI, No point in linking to The Daily Mail UK, it is not in any sense a serious publication. Wikipedia wont take it, we shouldn't either.
Lol, here I can walk you through it.
Sentence number #1 of the Twitter post:
"NEW: people worry when they hear "40% of hospitalisations are fully vaxxed", but this chart shows that's actually good news."
I can change my reply from its actually a good thing to its actually good news if that will help you.
> Again, I'm no sure what your point is. Given that we have 80% effective vaccines, what should we do, use them or not?
Whoa, 80 percent effective? Sorry friend, they are 93% effective. My point is it would be much better if they actually stopped the spread of the virus. Up until now this was solely blamed on the unvaccinated. If the vaccines were better, we wouldn't have to blame the vaccinated as well now.
By all means use them, except now it's less of a "help the herd! for the greater good!" thing and more of a selfish thing. Definitely get vaccinated if you haven't previously had the infection though.
> FYI, No point in linking to The Daily Mail UK, it is not in any sense a serious publication. Wikipedia wont take it, we shouldn't either.
Says the one who used Twitter as a source? Dude you are cracking me up. Here's the video from the Daily Mail article on Twitter (because I know how much you like it):
https://mobile.twitter.com/ciclbh/status/1420734568861155331
A twitter post which is _not_ specifically abut the Provincetown outbreak, the one that you called "this rather serious disaster". A post from before that outbreak is by definition not spin of that outbreak, and that was your claim.
> Sorry friend, they are 93% effective.
Sorry friend, that varies by vaccine (there are several) and virus variant (there are several). You did notice the "80% efficacy against infection" on the diagram. Quoting a higher number is anyway irrelevant, it does not exactly disprove my point.
> My point is it would be much better if they actually stopped the spread of the virus.
No fooling, but you have to use what you have so there's no point in raising that.
> Says the one who used Twitter as a source?
I think I made it as clear as possible that the Financial Times of London was the ultimate source of that graphic?
Anyway, I don't think that you have much of interest to say, so have a nice day!