Appreciate your reply. Again your reply seems to be like ruminants chewing on the cud, regurgitating on the same information again and again without the specific information I had asked. You agree that immunity rendered by vaccines wanes over time and against mutating virus and your reply only proves you are ready for perpetual injections without any consideration for natural infection. It is a choice you are willing to make. Similarly I do have choice which shows from real world data that majority of people especially young are either asymptomatic or mild with COVID infection.
I raise questions rather than blindly trusting peer reviewed studies as I am a minority against an established majority which is so powerful and can sponsor all type of biased studies which can be cherry picked to profiteer from a human calamity. Your inability to answer my specific questions shows the lack of understanding of how human immunity works or people who know the answer don't want to discuss as it wont give them maximum profits.
When I pointed out that under 40s making up more of hospitalizations last year, you say it is Comedy gold. But when you say that it is because they didn't had vaccines last July, but you also claim that most of the young are unvaccinated still now and delta is several times infectious than previous strain, aren't you contradicting yourself? That's why I ask for specific data which you couldn't provide at all. Give the data of under 40''s who are hospitalized now between vaccinated and unvaccinated? Also give the data of unvaccinated if hospitalized are having the infection more than the first time? It is because if breakthrough infection can happen between some one naturally infected and vaccinated this will show clear picture that vaccinated are superior over natural infection in preventing breakthrough infection and getting hospitalized and vice versa.
Your quote:
"But Riley points out that the PHE data to date are consistent with estimates that suggest—despite these drops in efficacy—vaccines in use in the UK (Pfizer BioNtech, AstraZeneca, and Moderna) all reduce the risk of death by more than 85%, ***regardless of variant.***"
"Evidence on Delta clearly disagrees with this. Why are we seeing increased hospitalizations of younger people if natural immunity works better?"
Again the same error in your answer. No specific data which shows differentiation between under 40's vaccinated and unvaccinated. Whether they had comorbidities or immune compromised? But your BMJ article itself says "Marr recovered but some have not. Data from Public Health England (PHE) reveal that of all the people who died within 28 days of testing positive for the delta variant between 1 February and 19 July, 49% (224) had had two vaccine doses. Almost all of these people, 220, were aged 50 or older."
Your quote:
"This is as dumb a take as I have seen yet. You completely disregard the fact that these people were ***hospitalized***, the strain this places on medical facilities, and the impact this has in pulling resources away from other critical care"
Your reply sounds like a comment from a nincompoop. Again you quoted me out of context. I had specifically asked between young and old in that Singapore study, how many unvaccinated who are less than 40, got hospitalized? I think you are suffering from selective amnesia :-). May be the mRNA vaccines have already breached your blood brain barrier and affected your memory. Just joking!
Your Quote:
"Again, read the Imperial College study because we know that viral load reduces more rapidly in vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, reducing the window of time to infect others."
I had mentioned that, The Ct value of 22.9 for unvaccinated and 24.3 for vaccinated isn't significant difference at all
The most important data is missing: How many hospitalised and dead due to COVID is between vaccinated and unvaccinated?
How many less than 40 got hospitalized and died and how many more than 40 got hospitalized and died due to COVID in vaccinated and unvaccinated?
Moreover the imperial study never concluded that viral load reduces more rapidly in vaccinated versus unvaccinated. I think age is catching up with you or is too confused. :-):-)
You Quote:
"Experts say the uptick in COVID-19 cases is happening largely because of the ****number of people who remain unvaccinated.****
“They play a huge role. If everyone is vaccinated, eventually infections drop to zero and so do variants,“ Parikh said. “But if the virus has an easy host, ***such as an unvaccinated individual***, then it is easy for it to mutate into a more contagious and virulent form.”"
This comment is a dump comment by experts I had ever seen. When SARS-COVID-2 is as infectious as flu, it is highly impossible for it to drop to zero nor there wont be any variants especially breakthrough infections among vaccinated with similar viral load is always possible. That's why they are planning perpetual vaccinations for corona virus like they always had for flu playing the catch and mouse game. Also an easy host can be anyone who is immune compromised or elderly or those with organ transplant or cancer. The virus will become endemic in every country trying to find equilibrium with the host, while spreading but killing the host at minimum. This is my prediction as an enthusiastic guy trying to understand more of ones own body. A century ago, natural infection worked for Spanish flu, which can work for COVID too.
Just because a paper is peer reviewed that doesn't mean that it is error free and just because a paper isn't peer reviewed it is full of errors. The fact is that even some peer-reviewed papers on coronavirus have made errors in the rush to publish. This may be due to push a larger agenda or be in limelight in a rapidly evolving crisis. That's why we need to ask specific questions to get answers to make informed decisions.
A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it. The truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. Don’t forget before any vaccine, you still had a 99% chance of surviving.