zlacker

>>themgt+(OP)
The main problem here is that Public health agencies are refusing to admit they are / were wrong in certain cases causing all political non sense. The second problem is that public healt official ended relying too much on mandates/enforcements and way too little on propaganda.

For example, it is obvious now that vaccines do not prevent one from getting COVID and spreading COVID. Yes - vaccines definitely make having COVID like a mild fly: I got it just now and I was just a little sick for a couple of days.

But they still claim that vaccines are preventing the spread.

And then the approach is really bad: instead of running “viagra style” commercials on TV for vaccinations they decided to go with heavy handed mandates and requirements. I bet a couple of Steph Curry and Tom Brady commercials about vaccination will do wonder.

>>tlogan+lf1
Here's a study showing vaccine effectiveness against infection in the range of >90% initially, waning to 60-80% after 4 months. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/28/5/22-0141_article

The fact that vaccines make you less likely to become infected in the first place and also they make the disease shorter means that vaccines also reduce transmission.

>>guelo+Ti1
Here's a study showing that the duration of Omicron BA.1 infection (time from PCR+ to PCR-) is actually longer for vaccinated persons than for the unvaccinated. The time for PCR+ to a negative culture is actually longer for boosted subjects than for unvaccinated.

"Duration of Shedding of Culturable Virus in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) Infection" (see "Figure 1. Viral Decay and Time to Negative Viral Culture."): https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2202092

>>briand+qA1
That is not what that (very small) study showed. It was comparing Delta vs Omicron, not vaccinated vs not.

"There were no appreciable between-group differences in the time to PCR conversion or culture conversion according to vaccination status"

>>guelo+Py2
I chose my words with care.

The figure (specifically Fig1D and Fig1E of https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/jour...) speaks for itself.

I would rather the authors soft-pedal the alarming results and get published than not get published at all. Just as I approve of POWs appearing to collaborate by sitting for media interviews that may, on the surface, make their captors seem humane and then blinking "T-O-R-T-U-R-E" in Morse code.

Ignoring the charts and clutching at that line of text still requires one to accept that vaccinated and boosted persons didn't clear covid any faster than unvaccinated persons, which completely contradicts the vaccine-pushers' dogma that the adverse effects and deaths occurring in younger demographics (especially but not solely among younger males) post-vax are worth it, on balance, because the shots reduce spread to and hence deaths among more vulnerable groups.

>>briand+5F2
Ok got it. You conducted your own study that contradicts the authors by reading their minds and combining that with your unrelated conspiracy theories.

>>guelo+7r3
Again, the authors state they found no evidence that vaccinated and boosted individuals were faster to clear covid (either according to PCR testing or culture [replication-competent viruses]) than unvaccinated.

This directly contradicts much of the dishonest, unethical messaging urging young and healthy individuals to submit to experimental shots, which sold it to us on the basis that we would be shielding higher-risk persons, depriving those who were not at high risk yet chanced the shots for altruistic reasons of genuine informed consent.

The clearing rates indicated in the embedded figure match what I'm seeing in my own community and I'm afraid your cognitive dissonance is bound to increase as time goes on and you find you're inhabiting what you claim to view as a conspiracy theory.

Time will tell.