"Many decisionmakers assume that the vaccinated can be excluded as a source of transmission. It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures."
When I have (necessarily delicate) discussions about stuff like this with my acquaintances, their first response would be "the boosters will take care of that".
So now I'm searching for a good comeback to that, aside, of course, from pointing out that the boosters will have the same problem, and are largely being pushed as a perpetual-profit spigot for the pharmaceutical industry. Of course boosters will amplify any risk from the vaccines, but I prefer to avoid contentious subjects like side effects because that turns into a rabbit hole.
Comeback - 1) The vaccine, all vaccines, have some degree of risks associated. 2) The vaccine effectiveness declines rapidly and the UK is now going to 3 month booster program. Are you going to sign on to a quarterly injection? 3) It is unknown if the risks/AE's are cumulative. 4) All this for a virus that has a 99%+ recovery rate?
A comeback aside from "Will they?" And "Always, in all places, or only sometimes, in some places?"
The UK has been triple-dosing since mid-September. New England likewise. So you can acknowledge the hypothetical "win" in Israel (likely a coincidence anyway) and ask what good that does the rest of the world the rest of the time.
Through the ''vaccination'', especially in children, many more antibodies are formed in a very short time than could happen through an infection. Doesn't this convey to the young body in a bio-illogical way that the body is affected by a severe course of disease, although the reality is quite different? Is the young body not being inoculated with a lie, which it must however believe to be the truth? Which is why the body MUST react to the lie.
Whether anti-S antibodies are a correlate for severity of infection is a bit of a dodgy subject, since everyone is different and what is true in aggregate might not be meaningful for the individual - lots of people seem to generate measurable anti-S antibodies for mild or asymptomatic infection; though now there are signs of another layer of asymptomatic and seronegative response for even "lighter" asymptomatic challenge (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04186-8).
I think it's a safe bet that the mRNA transfection sets off more alarm bells, even in the child sized dose, than a mild infection for many or most recipients. This might not even matter, as far as auto-immune dangers. Even trace exposure to foreign proteins in the blood can prime a future anaphylactic response; and thus presumably an accidental autoimmune attack.
"The epidemiological relevance of the COVID-19-vaccinated population is
increasing". (the vaccinated are just as likely to become infected and to spread the virus) See Lancet article. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-7762%2821%2900258-1
"Many decisionmakers assume that the vaccinated can be excluded as a source of transmission. It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures."
When I have (necessarily delicate) discussions about stuff like this with my acquaintances, their first response would be "the boosters will take care of that".
So now I'm searching for a good comeback to that, aside, of course, from pointing out that the boosters will have the same problem, and are largely being pushed as a perpetual-profit spigot for the pharmaceutical industry. Of course boosters will amplify any risk from the vaccines, but I prefer to avoid contentious subjects like side effects because that turns into a rabbit hole.
Comeback - 1) The vaccine, all vaccines, have some degree of risks associated. 2) The vaccine effectiveness declines rapidly and the UK is now going to 3 month booster program. Are you going to sign on to a quarterly injection? 3) It is unknown if the risks/AE's are cumulative. 4) All this for a virus that has a 99%+ recovery rate?
A comeback aside from "Will they?" And "Always, in all places, or only sometimes, in some places?"
The UK has been triple-dosing since mid-September. New England likewise. So you can acknowledge the hypothetical "win" in Israel (likely a coincidence anyway) and ask what good that does the rest of the world the rest of the time.
Through the ''vaccination'', especially in children, many more antibodies are formed in a very short time than could happen through an infection. Doesn't this convey to the young body in a bio-illogical way that the body is affected by a severe course of disease, although the reality is quite different? Is the young body not being inoculated with a lie, which it must however believe to be the truth? Which is why the body MUST react to the lie.
Whether anti-S antibodies are a correlate for severity of infection is a bit of a dodgy subject, since everyone is different and what is true in aggregate might not be meaningful for the individual - lots of people seem to generate measurable anti-S antibodies for mild or asymptomatic infection; though now there are signs of another layer of asymptomatic and seronegative response for even "lighter" asymptomatic challenge (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04186-8).
I think it's a safe bet that the mRNA transfection sets off more alarm bells, even in the child sized dose, than a mild infection for many or most recipients. This might not even matter, as far as auto-immune dangers. Even trace exposure to foreign proteins in the blood can prime a future anaphylactic response; and thus presumably an accidental autoimmune attack.