posted by queencitybuckeye

The vaccination rate of Israel and the U.S. are a couple of points apart, and (from cdc.gov):

"The risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Early data suggest infections in fully vaccinated persons are more commonly observed with the Delta variant than with other SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, data show fully vaccinated persons are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2, and infections with the Delta variant in fully vaccinated persons are associated with less severe clinical outcomes. Infections with the Delta variant in vaccinated persons potentially have reduced transmissibility than infections in unvaccinated persons, although additional studies are needed."

Did you even read the part you bolded?  

posted by jmog

Did you even read the part you bolded?  

Yes, it says what I said earlier. The vaccinated spread the virus less than the unvaccinated.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Yes, it says what I said earlier. The vaccinated spread the virus less than the unvaccinated.

No, you missed half the sentence if that’s your take away.

POTENTIALLY, yet more studies need to be done.  

Potentially in scientific papers typically means the two were near equal (transmissibility) yet we believe one vs the other or they didn’t test that at all and gave their opinion.

If their study showed that they would have said that.

That's simply not true, at least in the scientific journals I've read and those I've been published in.

posted by queencitybuckeye

That's simply not true.

It most certainly is.

Took 5 seconds on google, like Gut so elegantly suggested.

Your transmissibility is a direct correlation to your viral load.

Delta variant, the predominant strain by far right now, shows to have the same viral load in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.

All I did was type in “delta variant viral load vaccinated vs unvaccinated” 

First link, second was same answer different source.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20211001/Similar-viral-load-in-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-individuals-infected-with-SARS-CoV-2-Delta-variant.aspx

posted by queencitybuckeye

That's simply not true.

If their study showed what you said, they would have directly said that. They wouldn’t have said “potentially, more studies are needed”  

What we know, from every reputable study so far, is that the vaccine is really not a vaccine, it’s an inoculation.

It doesn’t keep you from getting covid, it doesn’t keep you from transmitting it either.

It most likely makes your symptoms far less if you do get it.

Just like the yearly flu shot, it makes the flu manageable if you get it, doesn’t stop you from getting it.

You can keep saying something different to make yourself feel better but facts don’t agree with you.  

Reputable study = those that agree with you.

posted by queencitybuckeye

That's simply not true, at least in the scientific journals I've read and those I've been published in.

posted by jmog

If their study showed what you said, they would have directly said that. They wouldn’t have said “potentially, more studies are needed”  

It does not mean what you claimed it meant, that it is no more likely than unlikely. That was a lie, sir.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Reputable study = those that agree with you.

Nope, plenty of reputable studies I have read in the past over many scientific topics that I didn’t agree with when I read it. It either changed my mind or it lead me to read more to get a clearer picture.

I got Covid after being vaccinated. Do I need a booster? Do I need a mask? I’m not doing either. My 2 and 3 year old also got it and were fine. The masks in daycare is stupid. My 2 year old’s speech is hampered by her teachers wearing one. 

posted by jmog

What we know, from every reputable study so far, is that the vaccine is really not a vaccine, it’s an inoculation. 

WTF does that even mean?!?  Would you care to attempt to explain the impact and relevance of the above statement?

You are the smartest retard I've ever encountered.

posted by gut
JMOG is an abject partisan hack.  I used to respect him, even after I knew he supported Trump.  But some shit he posts is just absolutely shameful for what he claims as education and experience.

It WAS kind of funny that he felt the need to "educate" me in what words and phrases mean in scientific journals. I both read them and was published in them prior to his birth.

posted by gut
JMOG is an abject partisan hack.  I used to respect him, even after I knew he supported Trump.  But some shit he posts is just absolutely shameful for what he claims as education and experience.

Keep up the ad hominem, but at least get the attacks right.

I don’t and never did support Trump.  I thought Trump was a compete asshole and a disgrace as a person in that office.

I do believe that his actual policies were better than the far left, but that’s about all.

As a libertarian it isn’t hard to like someone’s policies over the far left however.

So you can argue the points or keep up the ad hominem, but at least get the insults you are trying correct.  I always have and always will think Trump is an asshole.

posted by queencitybuckeye

It does not mean what you claimed it meant, that it is no more likely than unlikely. That was a lie, sir.

I didn’t say that unvaccinated or vaccinated were more likely, you did.  Your bolded study didn’t help your statement at all.

I said that it’s inconclusive or equal amount of transmissibility among the delta variant.

So what will you say next that I didn’t actually claim?

posted by jmog

Keep up the ad hominem, but at least get the attacks right..

Then maybe stop ignoring ESTABLISHED science that refutes your beliefs?

You're a fucking hack.  You're QO with a Phd. It's obvious to everyone else with similar bonafides.

At least Queen is trying to stay on topic, even if he is trying to change what I claimed.

Gut is just going off the rails, a “your mom” joke or “I slept with your wife” joke will be next for him.

You claimed that the word potentially has a meaning in scientific journals that it's equally likely or unlikely. That is an incorrect interpretation.

Sorry....the correct term would be "quack"

posted by gut

Then maybe stop ignoring ESTABLISHED science that refutes your beliefs?

You're a fucking hack.  You're QO with a Phd. It's obvious to everyone else with similar bonafides.

Typically people result to these kinds of posts when they don’t know how to argue their point.

And I don’t have a PhD. Masters in Chemical Engjneering and 2 BS’s (ChemEng and Applied Math).

Once you get back to formulating a coherent response to the argument rather than attacking the person, come back to the topic at hand.

Post a study that contradicts mine, that the viral loads for delta variant is significantly higher in unvaccinated.

posted by jmog

At least Queen is trying to stay on topic, even if he is trying to change what I claimed.

Gut is just going off the rails, a “your mom” joke or “I slept with your wife” joke will be next for him.

No, I really didn't.  I provided no proof to dispute your equally unproven quack claim.  I simply corrected your misinformation.

Feel free to post your "science" backing your claims.  You know Queen and I will embarass you.

posted by queencitybuckeye

You claimed that the word potentially has a meaning in scientific journals that it's equally likely or unlikely. That is an incorrect interpretation.

No I did not. You again didn’t read what I said.

I said it EITHER means they didn’t test that at all or properly yet they BELIEVE it to be true so said it needs further study.

OR 

It means they did a few tests and got similar/inconsistent results for both “sides” yet they believe one side over the other to be true and said it needs to be studied more.

I never said it means either side is just as likely.

Read again, without changing what I said to suit your argument.

posted by gut

No, I really didn't.  I provided no proof to dispute your equally unproven quack claim.  I simply corrected your misinformation.

Feel free to post your "science" backing your claims.  You know Queen and I will embarass you.

Already posted an article that linked to a study.

Your turn to dispute it with another study.

Or you think I need to provide like 5 or 10 studies before you stop the ad hominem bullshit?

posted by jmog

Already posted an article that linked to a study it

Well that settles it then.  One study is gospel.  I'm sure I could shit all over it if it were actually worth my time.

I know you're full of shit.  And so do you.  The difference is, the former is an honest take and the latter is a psychopath.