Data demonstrating that transmission is similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated people

"This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext

"clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons."

From a study cited above (currently under peer review): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.12.21265796v1

Objectively, "rushed" would be an approach some might want to take when they are concerned about reducing infection and death. However, making a decision to "rush" something without considering various factors, such as the pathogen's virulence, the safety of the treatment and its efficacy on transmissibility, isn't always going to produce the best result.

Immunologists spoke up (you won't know this if you don't look outside a few select media channels) saying that mass vaccination is a bad idea during a pandemic if it does not stop transmission as that will only accelerate mutations. Once they learned that the treatment was not preventing spread -- oops -- that's why they told vaccinated people to put their masks back on.

Then the "pandemic of the unvaccinated" narrative was driven to shame people when in fact there is no statistical difference between either group in terms of spread.

And continues to take place. As more data comes out to show that many of the things we were told by "experts" is not accurate, there are some people who don't want to acknowledge this. It's a function of sunk cost fallacy.



This seems ridiculous unless you understand experimental science. If you look at it in the context of this being a large experiment, then it all makes perfect sense. It's about getting different data sets.

And quietly, too. I don't think most people are aware that they stopped. Because if it doesn't get covered by your favorite media source, you won't hear about it -- unless you go look for yourself.

It's like Pfizer having had pulled selling their vaccine to India because India required an independent investigation of it. How many know about that? A population of like 1.4 billion, because they didn't want any independent testing? Isn't that interesting?

People are largely unaware of how medical treatments are developed. You don't just study for immediate reactions, you study for long-term. That's why they typically take 5 to 10 years; you need to monitor people and collect data. You need to study the potential range of effects on the body.

Getting around this is why "Emergency Use Authorization" (EUA) exists. And it's why one was issued for these treatments. They hadn't studied them long enough to get regular approval.

I hate to tell you this, people, but it means that when they tell you it's "safe"; it's conjecture. We don't have any data on how mRNA treatments effect us in the long run. This is a new technology with very limited use in people. Until this past year. Now we have millions and millions of people to watch and see what happens.

J&J said they pulled production to focus on other products. Given there have been multiple warnings about a greater risk of side effects from their treatment, blood clots and Guillain–Barré syndrome, for starters, you may wonder if that's the full truth.

I wouldn't be surprised if the others ended up pulling theirs. There are increasing reports of adverse events (AE) from people who have received them. Stay tuned.