We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29758737.
I mean, look at BC in Canada where the most at-risk people have a vaxx rate of 99%+ and overall rate of ~90% for the rest of the eligible population, the government still saw fit to shut it all down 3 days before Christmas. Compliance doesn't ensure freedom.
And while ~80% of the eligible population has been vaccinated, the 18% of the population that's unvaccinated is responsible for 67% of hospitalizations, and nearly 80% of ICU admissions [0]. Note for the source - while it's fun to play with and look around, I'm sourcing my numbers from the Doughnut Charts section
[0] http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/data-reports/covid-...
citation needed for the full cycle: healthy -> contracted -> transmitted
My current understanding is that at least the first step is hindered. See e.g. https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiOTAzYzY0NjktMWYwNC0... shows approximately 4.5x reduction of the chances to contract (and therefore to spread further).
You can however look at what's happening in a single country despite the vaccination: Portugal, with close to 90% vaccination rate, is getting the highest rates of infection ever as we speak. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/portugal/
For a vaccine that's supposed to slow or stop the spread, sorry but that kind of trend is not very convincing.
I'll give you an example: Russia with relatively low vaccination rates has close to the highest number of excess deaths per capita. Portugal you mentioned is not even close.
> are absolutely no 2 countries like each other
fortunately there are like 200+ of them, so one should be able to see a trend. Even the 50 US states would work.
From what I see you are the one not understanding science and ignoring facts here. You just dismissed my first link based on an irrelevant claim that countries with high vaccination rates still have outbreaks (duh).
you mentioned the first step is hindered. Which is completely not proven by the fact that countries with high vaccination rates should effectively have a R trending towards zero if the vaccines even worked half as well as they should. Instead you see major outbreaks which completely contradicts the "hindrance" you refer to.
> From what I see you are the one not understanding science and ignoring facts here.
Ad-hominem attacks won't get you points here.
And you just made a new claim with 0 backing in numbers.
I don't know if you are arguing in good faith here, but definitely in low quality. Show us the numbers supporting your point. You just implied R is not affected by vaccination status, but you have provided 1 data to back this.
Whereas I provided a cumulative of thousands of cases, that directly support my point.
Where?
> And you just made a new claim with 0 backing in numbers.
which claim?
"vaccinated people not understanding the science"
> which claim?
"the fact that countries with high vaccination rates should effectively have a R trending towards zero if the vaccines even worked half as well as they should" (implying they do not have R trending to 0 vs unvaxxed).
Then we do not have a vaccine, by the pre-vaccine definition of vaccine.
So no, it doesn't. You may as well say that exhaling CO2 is causing global warming.