There are 119 new positive cases in Gibraltar today. 71 are vaccinated and 48 are unvaccinated.
If vaccines didn't prevent transmission, one would expect that second number to be 10 or less given the base rate of vaccination.
There are 119 new positive cases in Gibraltar today. 71 are vaccinated and 48 are unvaccinated.
If vaccines didn't prevent transmission, one would expect that second number to be 10 or less given the base rate of vaccination.
All I sad that vaccines can't stop the spread and it still looks like that. I didn't say they don't reduce it or that they're not beneficial otherwise.
Personal anecdote time: I got covid from person who was fully vaccinated 2 months before and didn't have any symptoms. Btw. since this was second time for me, plus with vaccines in the mean time, it was like a very mild cold, one day of temperature and some coughing afterwards.
Hm, numbers I'm googling for Gibraltar don't really add up - population 2021: 35.120, fully vaccinated: 40.722. One explanation would be that there are non-rezidents who are working there and got vaxed, while not counted as population.
Re: your other point, no vaccine is 100% effective at "stopping" spread. Absolutely no vaccine is 100% effective. There is no qualitative difference between prevention and reduction. If it reduces spread, then by definition some nonzero number of potential infections were prevented.
Ok, next bigger countries on vacc list:
- UAE: population 9.3m, 94% fully, 2400 cases 7-day avg
- Portugal: population 10.3m, 89% fully, 55k cases 7-day avg
Especially Portugal's cases don't support that 90% vacc stops spread in any meaningful way.
In this way, a reader can deduce what they believe is the closest truth available rather than it be shouted down at them. The fact that grujicd did not interpret Gibraltar data accurately is, I believe in this case, not a mark against them but a testament to how well they formulated their argument that flaws can be evaluated easily.
public health authorities on the other hand will begrudgingly hand over data after months of outcry, as well as change testing criteria and engage in many other methods of purposeful/accidental obfuscation, making their arguments hard to decipher.
I can't really help you if your opinion is that public health authorities are working in bad faith.
You're free to present different numbers, but please don't cite anything pre-Omicron since it's not relevant any more.
Once more, my case is that current vaccines are not a way to stop spread and therefore vaccinating low-risk population like kids won't protect the elders. I fully support vaccination for self benefits. As I did for myself.
It looks like the mainstream health authorities have shared up to date information on the protection against infection by omicron by vaccines. If that's the case, doesn't it mean that vaccinating kids would protect elders?