This BBC article would seem to suggest that there is no question; yet we are told we can still catch Covid & pass it on even when fully vaccinated, hence the need for everybody to wear the masks etc. Maybe I’m betraying my lack of understanding here, but is it not possible that the reported success of the vaccines is due just to the suppression of symptoms, so people don’t realise or may not bother to report infections, which doesn’t really mean that infections have really gone down ? Or am I missing something ?
1 Like
I’m afraid I won’t read Baa Baa Cee articles so will only hazard a guess or two regarding your question @Poster123
If people feel a bit ‘off’ the advice was Act As Though You’ve Got It (I’m not sure how many catchphrases have come since… lots, I dare say) which translates as “go get tested”. Net result of that: casedemic, to a greater or lesser extent. If the focus is, as it has been, Get Jabbed, not Get Tested, that would suppress the second metric.
At the moment it’s hay fever season, a percentage of us get those annoying symptoms but mainly get on with our lives. We could, possibly, be harbouring covid, the one bug to rule them all. But we’re not in the case count.
Another factor might be the reported “fact” that the jab might make one feel a bit dicky But This Is A GoOd tHInG and means it’s working. No ‘case’ reported and no side effect reported either.
In a nutshell: FWIW I don’t think you’re missing anything, no.
The truth, I would dare suggest, is that a seasonal respiratory ailment is out-of-season. The autumn will be, um, interesting, with all those double and, yes, triple, mutants laying in wait. Or maybe, let’s hope, a regular round of flu, unpleasant as that can be. The problem is that the former explanation for the latter is oven-ready 
.
2 Likes
Thanks for replying; I guess that on a practical level if the vaccines do dramatically reduce symptoms, so that so people don’t even realised that they ae actually infected, a) it may actually lead to an increase in infections as these people will socially interact even more without any sort of precautions, and b) on the other-hand, to all intents, reducing symptoms to barely being noticeable, is it not the same as a cure ?
All the above is premised on there being no harmful side-effects of the vaccines, but every day there are new headlines of this sort; Israel said probing link between Pfizer shot and heart problem in men under 30 | The Times of Israel
One vaccine tried did have that problem - with people having no symptoms, and passing it around more than they would have.
1 Like
Yes
What you are missing is “the reported success …” is complete and utter BS along with every other offical “fact” about the scamdemic.
My suspicion too, Pat. 
Which was a point I had meant to include: lack of real cases, whatever that is taken to mean, doesn’t mean the asymptomatics are not rife. Which is and has long been the trump card of the lockdowners.
Hopefully one of the 5filters quants can run a slide rule over these stats:
1 Like
How much simpler might it have been to deal with this virus if asymptomatic transmission wasn’t counted as a major player. It needed much more critical appraisal than it’s had.
On first look this seems a good exposition to me. There seem to be a few states borderline in terms of severity of restrictions. To account for possible bias or chance effects a sensitivity analysis would be good idea - it sounds from what he says it would only make a small difference. If so that’s enough to make the point - to justify the unquantified effects, lockdowns would need to make a much bigger difference than this - a strict lockdown should soon see cases tumbling. Lockdowns are a relatively new invention and I expect their adverse consequences would have been more likely to be weighed up objectively in the past than now.
Looking at the slightly misleading headline, there does seem a small chance of bias - as in real terms, 1736 is not more than 1730. I don’t know the writer, is he part of Lockdown Sceptics? If not it may have been a case of publisher pester-power.
This explanation seems entirely sensible (emphasis added):
" I have addressed before why, despite their intuitive appeal as a way of suppressing viral spread, lockdowns have no significant effect on controlling the coronavirus. The chief reason is because much of the spread, particularly that which leads to serious disease and death, occurs in hospitals and care homes. Forty per cent of Covid deaths in England and Wales in the spring were care home residents, while Public Health Scotland found that between a half and two thirds of serious infections in the winter were picked up in hospital. Between these and transmission in private homes (which is more likely to happen when people are forced to stay at home), this accounts for much of it.
In terms of community transmission, even during a stringent lockdown such as the one we’ve had in the UK this winter, around half the workforce are travelling to work, while only around a third work exclusively from home. Add to that that many people still use supermarkets and other shops, and many children still attend school (even where the schools are only open for key workers’ children), and that’s a lot of social interaction. We also know from a major UK survey that less than half of people with Covid symptoms fully self-isolate, giving reasons such as going to work, going to the shops or regarding the symptoms as mild. This means we don’t need to resort to unsubstantiated ideas of asymptomatic infection being a major driver of transmission (which is unsupported by evidence, since, as with other similar viruses, asymptomatic carriers of the disease are barely infectious and contribute very little to spread) to explain ongoing community transmission."
Assuming the writer has not been cherrypicking in allocating lockdown categories amongst the many borderline states, this seems a strong case.
It doesn’t look like he’s pulling the wool about this, as he gives the sources for the lockdown info.
“At the same time I’ve done a fresh review of the measures different states took (using these two handy websites which have collected them all together) to ensure I’m putting each state in the correct category.”
That would likely be the place to check for any bias.
1 Like
@Poster123:
“Maybe I’m betraying my lack of understanding here, but is it not possible that the reported success of the vaccines is due just to the suppression of symptoms, so people don’t realise or may not bother to report infections, which doesn’t really mean that infections have really gone down ? Or am I missing something ?”
That’s what happened here:
Whooping cough resurgence due to vaccinated people not knowing they’re infectious?
Link: Whooping cough resurgence due to vaccinated people not knowing they're infectious? -- ScienceDaily
1 Like
A simple suggestion from a simpler time: when you’re ‘asymptomatic’ you are actually what used to be called ‘well’! Generally speaking, well people are not infectious.
Don’t let the insidious propaganda lies seep into your subconscious! Treat the ‘asymptomatic’ codswallop as a recent invention of the scamdemic pushers; a hypothetical concept still very much awaiting trustable proof. Until then, not accepted as fact. So don’t bother to include it in your musings. It’s what we’re supposed to lard our worried conversations with; part of the fearporn blizzard, to get everyone hooked on regular poison-shots - for the greater good of corporate profits, and corporate dictatorial power. [Disclaimer: I’m not a blanket anti-vaxer. I suspect that there are a few vaccines that may actually do some good, and may even be relatively harmless, on the strength of their long-tested record. But in the main, I doubt that they’re much of a net good in the world. Other approaches are simply sounder.]
Assume that when you feel well, you are well, and harmless to the world, and blank the prop-lies. And keep taking the C! That will keep you both well and harmless. Like me!
PS: The emoji function seems to be completely on the blink now, rather than being crammed right up on the top margin, like recently…
2 Likes
Hi @Evvy_dense , there is also the issue as to whether anyone is comparing jabees with non-jabee control groups to see whether there really is a benefit flowing from jabs particularly if you take into account the suggestion that jabs for one thing stops the immune system from acting against other things*. Clearly the more of any particular group are vaccinated the smaller are the available control groups for any fair comparison.
I understand long term testing by Pharma usually stops on the pretense of ethical consideration for non-jabees who are “missing out” on the benefits of the jabs! ( of course clinicians using HCQ refused to use placebo testing on control groups and were heavily criticised by the same Pharma for doing so! )
cheers
- the impact on the immune system’s ability to deal with other dangers is a side affect that will not be monitored just like lockdown side affects are talked about but not studied contemporaneously - in effect like the Swedish example is just ignored by MSM and unsocial media.
1 Like