> Given that widespread vaccination does not stop infection from spreading
There is not widespread vaccination, though. That's where your argument falls apart.
There is not widespread vaccination, though. That's where your argument falls apart.
Look at the trends in Italy, UK, US, for example.
I agree the vaccine helps, but there is no clear impact on reducing spread if you look at infection data in aggregate.
We've gone from 0% vaccinated, to 60-70% with no discernable dip in infection counts.
Taking for example the NL numbers: we have twice as many cases/day as during last winter's peak, but only half as many deaths/day. Naively, that suggests that the vaccines reduce case mortality by 75%. But that data is also hopelessly incomplete: we recently reinstated some of our lockdown measures, so the number of infections/day is stabilizing, but fatalities/day will probably keep rising for another week.
I am disputing that lockdowns have led to any discernable difference in outcomes over the long run in regards to case counts.
New Zealand may be the special case where they were able to actually completely halt inbound travel. But obviously their situation doesn't generalize.
The vaccines have been instrumental in getting back to normal.
Italy had severe shortages of medical supplies that led to many medical workers on the frontline to die of infection.
Your personal life bubble does not reflect the rest of the world. Asserting "most places" weren't under collapse is quite strange given that it's patently false.
I just took Finland as an example, since I have family there and happen to follow closely what's going on there (so I don't have to look things up).
And you brought up two examples. Need I remind you how many countries/regions/cities there are in the world?
If you disagree, use hard data to support your assertions that vaccines have noticeably reduced infection rate.
The one following the science is the one using the data, by the way. Anything else is religion.
So no, you don't get to claim "hard data" on your opinion.
This is called verifiable data.
Also the numbers in the US south are roughly equivalent to the east/west that had much more stringent lockdown, mask, and vaccine measures.
If these policies had any significant impact, you would see a large disparity in outcomes of TX, FL, vs NY, CA.
This is also verifiable data. Prove me wrong with data showing FL and TX had worse outcomes in regards to infections to blue states with strict measures.
If you can't show a significant difference in outcome, reassessing your firmly held beliefs that have been proven wrong through data is called "following the science".
Most lockdown proponents are following religion, and what they desire to be true, than science.
There's numerous confounding factors in these numbers that you conveniently ignore, and that you keep ignoring even when they're pointed out to you. This is called doubling-down on an indefensible position.
Then, instead of defending why your use of those numbers is scientifically sound, you accuse others of having "firmly held beliefs". This is called a personal attack.
And lastly, instead of doing the hard work to show why your conclusion is scientifically sound, you expect the other party to disprove your argument for you. This is called trolling.
All you've done is is ad hominem and provide no data. I am at least referencing factual data. Looks like I'm following the science and you're not.
Explain the confounding factors for how Texas ended up very similar to NY, despite obesity and comorbidities being much higher in the south. I can tell you from living in both places through the pandemic, that the populace of Texas doesn't care at all about covid and largely takes no precautionary measures vs New York residents who are much more diligent about masking and protocols.
You won't do it because the data doesn't exist to do it. The differences between states with vastly different policies are super marginal. If there was any strong effect, you would see an obvious disparity in outcome.
Does everybody staying inside reduce transmission? Yes, in the short term. Does it do anything in the longer term? No, absolutely not. Unless the draconian lockdown is done in perpetuity, which has devastating consequences.
If you choose not to spend 1 minute to Google it, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to cite my comment like a research paper when the verification is a Google search away.
If you disagree with the stats, feel fee to provide evidence that refutes it. That would enhance the conversation.
In the US, the CDC stopped publishing the data one would need to get answers on this in May. For some reason.
Citation please, because you're challenging the entire field of immunology here.