[QUOTE=MickG0105;11095309]Your focus when it comes to any disease is generally on the most vulnerable group. Nobody really gives two hoots about whooping cough or RSV in adults, and nobody uses the whole population to determine the critical case fatality rate for those diseases.
And you vaccinate outside of the most vulnerable cohort for a couple of reasons.
One, to try to manage the incidence rate. That is of interest to you in order to mitigate the likelihood of exposing the vulnerable, vaccinated or not.
Two, because it is never a great idea to have large vaccinated and unvaccinated populations co-existing when a disease is pandemic. Doing so creates a reservoir for the development of mutations.[/QUOTE
Valid points in theory. In practice however, consider the exponential rise in the significant numbers of infections in places like Israel Iceland Canada with such high vaccination numbers. I put to you that the reservoir for the development of mutations will exist even after vaccination. The Israelis are currently reporting a Relative Risk Reduction of 39% in transmissions hence their 3rd shot booster initiative.
On your first premise, the viral loads in vaccinated infected individuals are as high as non vaccinated. It is generally accepted by experts that transmission will continue as is evidenced by real world statistics.Therefore any success with an attempt to mitigate the likelihood of exposing the vulnerable through these particular vaccines is doubtful at best. Don’t misunderstand me for I comprehend the need to mitigate and I accept the moral undertones of your points. What I won’t accept is exercises in futility.
As I have stated previously. We need to gain a clearer picture of the real nature of this problem and the real absolute protections from these vaccines.
The numbers from those graphs don’t lie. 4.9% infection rate reduced to 3.8% after vaccine. 0.38% IFR reduced to 0.14% after vaccine.
These are the real numbers. Yes they show effectiveness. Enough to stop thousands of deaths probably not. Introducing added risks to younger people through the use of vaccines would be appear to offer little to no protection for the vulnerable so why do it. Waiting on high vaccination numbers before ending lockdowns will yield questionable improvements in outcome. Measurable but insignificant when you compare the damage both on a human and economic level that lockdowns are causing.
So vaccinating has now moved away from sensible medical intervention and has become a political trigger to end lockdowns.
Silly don’t you think?