[flagged]
Point has always been that people who are less ill, less severely ill, for a shorter duration, with fewer or no symptoms, have lower chances of infecting others.
The urge to simplify is great but it causes these weird discussions like "does the vaccine prevent (all) infection" or like what we have here.
The most recent research on the types of antibodies the vaccines create vs natural infection are showing the opposite: it causes our bodies to treat the virus more like an allergy, reducing the symptoms while clearing the infection much slower. This gives more chance to infect others, not less.
> Why in 2023 people still believe that C19 mRNA prevents infecting others?
The fact that we now know they were lying is why we're in this situation to begin with.
Some of us knew they were lying from the start and had a very frustrating few years: Pfizer made no claims about infection/transmission, just symptoms, because they never tested for infection/transmission. That claim popped up out of nowhere a few months after the vaccines were available.
Because it does. Your chances of getting and spreading COVID for the 3 months after you get a vaccine drop dramatically.
"Becoming sick with Covid" and "becoming infected with Covid" are very different things.
"Although vaccination still lowers the risk of infection, similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons who are infected with the delta variant call into question the degree to which vaccination prevents transmission."
Not to dispute your claim, but to put it into context. But apart from that, I am out of this debate.
Are you somehow assuming that they aren't ever going to get infected?
Can you back up that claim with long term studies?
Just infer the very reasonable "based on the information available". And it's not like the vaccines are a complete unknown. Making them work at all takes a huge level of understanding.
"based on the information available"
And the information avaiable is confusing and partly contradictory.
I know that many researchers advised against child vaccination, because of the unknowns and the low risk for the children from the disease in the first place.
"Making them work at all takes a huge level of understanding."
It does, but it would be news to me, that the immune system is completely understood. Even less the immune system and long term effects of a immune system that is developing.
It was cutting edge research and to my understanding it was more of: this might work.
And it did and unlike the anti vaxx crowd told us, apparently we did not die from it, nor were there mass severe long term damages to be found. But there was damage, some likely did in fact die from the vaccines and so it is not a 100% clear obvious decision. It might have been for you, that is allright and it was allright for me, but for my infant children I did not feel like making that experiment.
Also we who were called "anti-vax", were not actually anti vaccine. We were just skeptical that these vaccines were all they were cracked up to be, and wanted choice an freedom to make our own decisions without coercion.
To call us anti-vax was a deliberate smear and a straw-man, of our (now vindicated) concerns.
edit: I was vaccinated, but I can understand people who refused the new vaccines
It wasn't to enslave mankind as such, but there were certainly governmental factions looking to parley the situation to introduce climate change lock downs (see the Oxford 15 minute city project), universal id cards (vax pass mandates), and to address exploding government debt through inflation, impoverishing the citizenry.
Right wing people also correctly recognised that progressives despise them, and were more than happy to dominate them through spiteful imposition of malicious rules upon them and their children.
How about someone with a dedicated audience of 15 million mostly older folks, and the recipient of the highest civilian honor in the US, on his highly popular radio show?
>Rush Limbaugh: Folks, this coronavirus thing, I want to try to put this in perspective for you. It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump. Now, I want to tell you the truth about the coronavirus. (interruption) You think I’m wrong about this? You think I’m missing it by saying that’s… (interruption) Yeah, I’m dead right on this. The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.
As for the common cold... well its more akin to the common cold than than, say, the Spanish Flu
His labor secretary was literally the prosecutor who gave Epstein a sweetheart deal.
Trump was very great at using the pandemic against himself, by saying stuff like, maybe drinking desinfection helps.