Fake News on CDC website?

What the hell do you mean "identified as a rush transcript?"

Especially unvaccinated people? According to what exactly?

Do you think that I was objecting to that idea?

 

It's mentioned at the top of your CNN link; "THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.". It's a quick transcript of an unscripted interview so it might not be exactly correct word-for-word. That just means you need to be a little cautious if your point relies on interpretation of specific wording or terminology from very brief excepts.

Unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected regardless of the source of infection. If a person is infected (regardless of whether they are vaccinated or not), unvaccinated people around them are at greater risk that vaccinated ones (though they're all at some risk, which is why other preventative measures are necessary).

Possibly. It wasn't entirely clear what you point was in the OP. You seemed to be suggesting a contradiction in two different CDC sources (though I don't see that contradiction anyway) and that would imply that at least one version of that messaging would be wrong. That messaging is essentially that vaccination still works to some extent.

It might be clearer if you didn't just pose open questions around short selected quotes but simply stated your opinions and conclusions.

 

science seems to see getting the virus as different than being infected with the virus

everyone can get the virus, some of our immune systems will fight it off faster then others

kinda like you can have bacteria in your body, and your immune system keep it under control, when it gets out of control, it could be considered an infection

many people think if they don't know they got it, no symptoms, that they are not infected

 

Listen for yourself, starting at 1:14 minutes:

Unvaccinated people around infected people are at greater risk of infection, or hospitalisation and death?

 

How is this relevant to the topic?

 

I figured you were referring to this in your op ""COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing infection"

many are trying to spin vaccinated people testing positive as meaning the vaccine doesn't work

 

In this context, we're only talking about the risk of infection.

 

Not me. But this is about the CDC Director saying something quite different to the CDC website.

 

Any evidence that the unvaccinated are more at risk of infection to vaccinated people?

 

Well?

 

There is lots of evidence out there about general vaccine effectiveness against infection and though that seems to be significantly reduced against omicron, the evidence remains that it still offers some benefit; https://hospitalhealthcare.com/covi...se-37-effective-against-omicron-after-7-days/

Fair enough but that was a side point, more about your awareness of the sources you posted. Regardless, I still fail to see any inconsistency between the formal CDC guidance and the statements form the director in the interview.

 

Well it's pretty simple really: the CDC's website says that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection, and the CDC's director says that they're not. The inconsistency is clear to see.

 

But vaccinations do not prevent infection. Vaccinations may even increase the infections because the vaccinated may be unaware that they are infected and then pass the infection to both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.

I am fully vaccinated mainly because of my age. I doubt I would survive a serious bout of Covid 19.

 

Is it known that the vaccinated are more likely to get asymptotic infection than the unvaccinated?

 

The vaccinated are less likely to have symptoms than the unvaccinated. They might even have minor symptoms such as a cough or runny nose and not realize it is Covid19.

 

I think that is a terminology confusion though. When CDC refers to "preventing infection", it is about the vaccinated person becoming infected. When the director talked about "(not) preventing transmission", it was about a vaccinated person who has been infected passing that infection on to others. There is also an element "effective at preventing" meaning it reduces the risk but isn't necessarily 100% and "can't prevent" meaning it isn't 100%, even though it might reduce the risk - effectively saying the same thing, just from a different direction.

If you look at the wider comments in the interview, rather than focusing on a singular statement out of context, it seems fairly clear to me that the director is saying the same kind of thing as the general CDC guidance - vaccination is still beneficial but isn't (and has never been) perfect and so other preventative measures as also required.

 

Vaccinations are a mixed bag. They protect the person who is vaccinated, but not necessarily everyone else. They may even increase the infections among other because they may be unaware that they are infected.

 

Infection means the individual getting infected. Transmission is a better term for the infected person passing the infection on to others.

Vaccination does reduce infection rates (though not as well with omicron unfortunately). Vaccination does also reduce symptoms, but unvaccinated people can be non-symptomatic too. With equal populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, the vaccinated will have fewer overall cases, though more of those being non-symptomatic but the unvaccinated will still have more cases overall.

I've also seen suggestions that less symptomatic cases could also be less transmissible (less viral load in the respiratory system and so less spread) but nothing definitive. It's a complex and ever-changing picture so few if any definitive and unconditional statements about it are valid.

 

yup .. the first quote is a patent falsehood .. one that the Biden Fauci Clownshow have been parroting the whole way through.

Vaxed get and spread covid just as easy as unvaxed .. and the only folks that achieve some prevention of serious illness/death are the immune compromized - comorbidities crowd.

 

Where is the evidence of that? Even in states with high vaccination rates, the rate of new infections has increased dramatically.

A person can be infected without showing symptoms and pass that infection onto others. The big danger, and it appears to be coming true, is that the vaccinated infect others at a higher rate because they do not know they are infected.

Scientists sometimes talk as if the virus is intelligent. No. The virus is dumb as a rock. Like all organisms, they mutate during reproduction. Most mutations do not survive well and they just fade away. However, every once in a while, a mutation occurs which has all the required characteristics for survival and doing great damage. Delta and Omicron are prime examples. Delta because it does great damage and Omicron because it multiplies easily. It is not particularly surprising that Omicron came along after the vaccinations. It is particularly suited to survive and multiply when the majority are vaccinated.

Also, just as a matter of interest. Every time a person infects another person, the infection in that other person has the potential to mutate and start a whole new strain.

 

Which of my points do you think a general increase in infection rates counters? Omicron has led to higher infection rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated alike but that in itself doesn't mean vaccination isn't preventing some infections that would have otherwise happened.

Maybe, though you're still assuming a vaccinated person is equally infectious or that being non-symptomatic is the only risk-factor for transmission.

Regardless, if overall fewer vaccinated people are infected at all, the proportion of non-symptomatic infections could still be lower.
As a random hypothetical;
If for vaccinated people, 10% got infected and 80% of those were non-symptomatic, out of 100 people, we'd have 10 infections, 8 non-symptomatic.
If for unvaccinated people, 20% got infected but only 50% of those were non-symptomatic, out of 100 people, we'd have 20 infections, 10 non-symptomatic.

As I keep saying, it is a complex and ever-moving topic with no simple, binary answers.

 

I am not assuming anything. I am proposing a model which appears to fit the circumstances. And it looks very likely that the vaccinations have increased the number of infections.

Like I said previously, the virus mutates and the mutations which survive are those which best fit the situation. The vaccinations appear to have reduced the number of Delta variants. However, itt appears that the vaccinations have resulted in an ever higher number of Omicron infections. The death rate has not reached the level of the Delta variant, but the infection rate has far exceeded it.

 

Correlation doesn't equal causation and I doubt the data directly fits your hypothesis anyway, given vaccination rates will have generally increased steadily over time, even plateauing in some places, where as infection rates increased significantly in a short period of time. Given that there is already a simpler explanation - that omicron is simply more infectious - you'd need to provide more reasons and causal explanation to support your hypothesis.

This is off topic on this thread anyway so if you really want to present this idea, it'd be better done in it's own thread.

 

Look at it this way. There were many other variants between Delta and Omicron. But only Omicron took off and Delta has tended to fade away. Why is that? I am not proposing some absolute. It is a model. Models can be right or wrong. This model appears to fit perfectly. Propose your own model and we can discuss it.

 

As I said, this is off-topic here so if you want to raise your hypothesis, you should really start a new thread for it.