If the scientific consensus is that vaccinating is safer then doing the opposite means the people that do it are antiscientific (and it is very easy to prove this is the consensus, as you will not find even one scientific institution that say something different). That is your opinion about a personal decisionĪgain, this is something that can be easily proved. Or what? do you have a list of variants appearing in Japan, Israel or any other well vaccinated country? no? that is the point.Īgain, different opinions do not mean they all may be right, evidence can disprove mistaken opinions as in this case. That means those virologist are still as wrong as a layman. In science opinions come a very far second from evidence, nobody has evidence of variants appearing from vaccinated people, and the opposite (variants appearing preferentially from populations with low vaccination rates) is terribly evident. That is your opinion, but plenty of virologists (including Nobel Prize winners) have a different one.
My question was if it is justified to call someone who is pro vaccines, has had plenty of vaccinations and is waiting for a safe vaccine an "anti-vaxxer". That is your opinion about a personal decision. Repeating the mainstream media narrative does not equal "science". Note that "science" by definition includes different opinions and open debate.
That makes the prediction not only wrong, but antiscientific as well. This is false, some people believe this, but they do it in complete abscense of evidence of it being the case, and specially while rejecting to acknowledge the huge amount of evdience that disproves this theory as wrong.
The other thing is that there is an extra step in the reports and that is vaccinated people that not only get infected but also symptomatic enough to be tested, that means two layers of reductions in order to find equivalent rates.
One, that is a non-argument, for example you could say the same even if the vaccine prevented 99.9% of the infections, (the 0.01% of the vaccinated that were infected would have the same transmission rate as not vaccinated but still would mean a 99.9% of reduction). If A is infected and vaccinated and B is infected, there is NO DIFFERENCE in the transmission ratio between A and B. That is not true, as explained already many times and reported in scientific medical journals. Antivaxxers are the easiest example of people that reject science and make irrational decisions, but they have no monopoly on this. This is still a completely irrational decision, like choosing to drive without a seat belt just because you feel some newer model of belt is going to be safer. Is this label still bandied about? I have had plenty of vaccines in my life, and now I am waiting for the Novavax, which unlike the mRNA shots is a traditional vaccine. There is a reason why the scientific consensus right now is that the more people is vaccinated the less likely is for variants to appear, this is reflected in how all variants of importance have appeared in populations with low levels of vaccination. As long as they reduce the spreading they become useful at preventing the appearance of variants, and if they reduce also the symptoms, complications, hospitalizations and deaths that means they have an extra value since the variants appear more frequently the longer the infection persist onthe patient. Spreading still happen with immunizing vaccines, the vaccines for COVID are not special in this aspect. That would be an argument if the vaccines were immunizing. Why don't you make a list of variants and their place/time of origin? how many populations with high rates of vaccinations do you get? that should be enough to understand the "explanation" has no value in the face of what actually happens in the real world.
Plenty of virologists have been explaining that, even if the talking heads on TV did not notice. As the vaccines are leaky, they actually promote the evolution of variants that can escape them.