Quote from: Cnut237 on Today at 08:48:55 AM

Quote from: arielbit on October 08, 2021, 01:36:39 AM

you got fancy with "analogy" but the irony is you can't even "analyze" my point/topic, therefore you can't discuss.

the fact is.. you are just being evasive.

If the use of analogy is "fancy", then we've reached a new nadir. Reasoned human debate may no longer be possible. Shall we just throw faeces at one another?

I will spell it out. A thing can be effective without being 100% effective. No-one ever said that vaccines were 100% protective against infection. But they are, as the data indicate perfectly clearly, extremely protective against infection, particularly symptomatic infection. If you have been vaccinated, you are less likely to catch Covid. If you have been vaccinated and do catch Covid, then you are less likely to cough it out over someone else. Vaccination reduces the spread. This is not complicated.

Global herd immunity is unlikely. Effective herd immunity within a population may be achievable, if everyone is vaccinated (or has caught the virus). People who have not had the virus, who refuse the vaccine when offered, are actively working against achieving herd immunity.

You can 'spell it out' until the cows some home, but your spelling out both false data and a highly incomplete/invalid interpretations.

Vaxxed people have an equal or higher viral load when they get the currently active 'variants' (now that the original from whence the genetic material for the gene therapy was harvested complements of our Chinese friends in Wuhan is extinct.) If this turns out to be like the mumps vaccine failure scenario, the vaxxed turn into asymptomatic carriers with long lived colonies of the wild strain virus. So, they become super spreaders who are out and about spreading and shedding because the feel OK. Also, the vaccine wears off increasingly fast among the 'vaxxed' and in a lot of individuals it stops working at all. This is why we see mumps outbreaks in almost 100% vaccinated populations on such places as college campuses.

Back in my day, we all got mumps before our testicles dropped and had life-long immunity. Getting it after puberty when it could cause male infertility was very rare. Now, because of the vax, it is not uncommon at all. The pharma solution? More vaccines in the form of 'boosters' of course.

Mumps is a nothingburger in terms of sickness. I know from having it and having all my friends have it. It almost never caused anything but a swollen neck and a few days in bed, and you never went to the hospital or anything. Maybe mom chatted with the doctor on the phone, but usually not even that because everyone knew what it was and how to deal with it. We liked having the a week off school. When women started working more it became a cost issue for companies who employed mothers. That was the justification for even bothering with a vaccine.

Mumps is also an interesting failure in that with MMR, all three had to show 95% efficacy for licensure. As the mumps component failed, Merck got increasingly desperate and tried every kind of lab trick to 'show' 95%. Ultimately they just penciled in numbers in the lab books and some internal whistleblowers came forward. Merck's trump card was a pocket full of politicians and regulators. Julie Gerberding went straight from CDC director to VP of vaccines at Merck when she got done with her 'public service'. Merck kept their highly valuable MMR franchise, and you, dear reader, have never heard of this little hic-up.