Coronavirus is one mutation away from infecting millions

[Winehole23]

no transmission = no disease

slowing transmission does prevent cases at the population level

[DMC]

no transmission = no disease

slowing transmission does prevent cases at the population level

So masks don't work.

[Winehole23]

So masks don't work.

how does that follow?

[DMC]

i said the vaccine offers protection. hater is the one who moved the goalpost to "IT DOESNT PREVENT"

this is why we dont need Poster B jumping in mid-conversation

You are poster B. You were dubbed as such and that's your scarlet letter now.

You're the interloper here.

[Winehole23]

there's no magic bullet, it'll take a layered approach to get the caseload below the pandemic threshold.

singling out one element of mitigation because it doesn't do the job all by itself is derpish, tbh

[DMC]

how does that follow?

Because we still have disease at the population level.

[DMC]

there's no magic bullet, it'll take a layered approach to get the caseload below the pandemic threshold.

singling out one element of mitigation because it doesn't do the job all by itself is derpish, tbh

Alec disagrees

[ChumpDumper]

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...sked-questions

I'm pretty sure those pages are constantly updated. so its latest info.

Prove it.

[ChumpDumper]

moar all-or-nothing Trump s checking in

[spurraider21]

Seriously?

Preventing disease: im vaxed I get infected with Covid. But the immune protection by the vaccines prevents me from getting very sick (the disease)

Not preventing transmission: i am vaxed and infected with covid. With very mild symptoms. But I can still spread the virus to both vaxed and non vaxed.

Smdh

those two definitions seem identical

[spurraider21]

So masks don't work.

you cant make up your mind about masks

remember when you claimed they were a placebo? and then when i brought that take up you denied having called them a placebo. and then when i found your posts calling them a placebo your defense was "well thats a different thread"

[Winehole23]

[hater]

those two definitions seem identical

Ok you win dumbest poster of the month

Smh



Dymb head

Transmitting a virus seems equal to getting the disease from the virus

[spurraider21]

Ok you win dumbest poster of the month

Smh



Dymb head

Transmitting a virus seems equal to getting the disease from the virus

you've been unable to articulate what you think the difference is between preventing disease and preventing transmission of the disease

[hater]

you've been unable to articulate what you think the difference is between preventing disease and preventing transmission of the disease

youve been unable to understand a concept a 3 year old would

If u are infected with the virus preventing transmissions means you cannot give the virus to anyone

Preventing disease means you wont get sick from it

jfc

[spurraider21]

youve been unable to understand a concept a 3 year old would

If u are infected with the virus preventing transmissions means you cannot give the virus to anyone

Preventing disease means you wont get sick from it

jfc

excellent. you've finally spit it out.

now, if somebody is not currently testing positive for the virus, are they able to transmit it to somebody else? no.

and do the vaccines reduce someone's chances of testing positive? yes. i can send you links to any number of studies or results of clinical trials supporting this.

and if somebody DOES test positive, does the vaccine, on average, lower the amount of time during which they'd be testing positive, and therefore be able to transmit the disease? yes. i can send you links to any number of studies or results of clinical trials supporting this

so having more people vaccinated means there will be less transmissions of the virus. what has already been demonstrated and acknowledged is that in the event of a breakthrough case (you've been vaccinated and nevertheless catch covid/test positive for it), you are still transmitting the disease as much as an unvaccinated person is... during that period of time (which again, is shorter for vaccinated people)

[DMC]

you cant make up your mind about masks

remember when you claimed they were a placebo? and then when i brought that take up you denied having called them a placebo. and then when i found your posts calling them a placebo your defense was "well thats a different thread"

It's the natural conclusion from his statement. If slowing the spread prevents infection at the population level, and we wore masks, why haven't we prevented infection at the population level?

It doesn't prevent . It might re it some, but prevention means it doesn't happen. You shouldn't need the "100%" caveat as the term itself means that already.

And no, I remember you lying about it. I said the masks you get on the street and the non-surgical masks are placebos. Wearing a bandana over your face is a placebo. That's why later it was disallowed. I said as much in my original statement but you being your normal self, you reached out for echo chamber support and now you're revising history.

[DMC]

excellent. you've finally spit it out.

now, if somebody is not currently testing positive for the virus, are they able to transmit it to somebody else? no.

Wrong.

You can test negative (or not test at all) and still transmit the virus. Stick to lying, it's your profession.

and do the vaccines reduce someone's chances of testing positive? yes. i can send you links to any number of studies or results of clinical trials supporting this.

Reducing isn't preventing. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. The old joke about a police officer explaining the difference between slowing down and stopping comes to mind. If something prevented a hammer from hitting you in the face, would it hit you still, just less often?

and if somebody DOES test positive, does the vaccine, on average, lower the amount of time during which they'd be testing positive, and therefore be able to transmit the disease? yes. i can send you links to any number of studies or results of clinical trials supporting this

Still not preventing it. You keep moving the goalpost to "reduce". You were using "prevent" earlier. Typical you.

so having more people vaccinated means there will be less transmissions of the virus. what has already been demonstrated and acknowledged is that in the event of a breakthrough case (you've been vaccinated and nevertheless catch covid/test positive for it), you are still transmitting the disease as much as an unvaccinated person is... during that period of time (which again, is shorter for vaccinated people)

But not prevented. Remember that word.

[DMC]

Masks work by slowing the spread which prevents cases at the population level so the purpose of masks is to prevent cases at the population level

Spread was slowed

There are still cases at the population level

Masks therefore don't work for their intended purpose

[Thread]

Masks work by slowing the spread which prevents cases at the population level so the purpose of masks is to prevent cases at the population level

Spread was slowed

There are still cases at the population level

Masks therefore don't work for their intended purpose

FYI...MF Biden lost another 3k twixt yesterday & today.

[ChumpDumper]

DMC's placebos

[DMC]

FYI...MF Biden lost another 3k twixt yesterday & today.

Some said "every morning Dementia wakes up and has a cup of Joe"

[spurraider21]

It's the natural conclusion from his statement. If slowing the spread prevents infection at the population level, and we wore masks, why haven't we prevented infection at the population level?

It doesn't prevent . It might re it some, but prevention means it doesn't happen. You shouldn't need the "100%" caveat as the term itself means that already.

And no, I remember you lying about it. I said the masks you get on the street and the non-surgical masks are placebos. Wearing a bandana over your face is a placebo. That's why later it was disallowed. I said as much in my original statement but you being your normal self, you reached out for echo chamber support and now you're revising history.

people use the term prevent or preventative in medical care all the time without it meaning 100% foolproof. now you're the one getting hung up on semantics. ive been remarkably clear that vaccines are not 100% effective re: catching covid, or , even dying of covid. trying to pretend that i've held the position that no vaccinated person can be infected, or asking me to defend that position now, is stupid.

[spurraider21]

Wrong.

You can test negative (or not test at all) and still transmit the virus. Stick to lying, it's your profession.

this is dumb. obviously somebody can catch covid without taking a test. when i said somebody not testing positive, i mean somebody who does not "have covid" to the extent that they would be testing positive. its clear from the context of my post that i wasnt excluding people who have covid but are not testing. but you want to pretend otherwise

Reducing isn't preventing. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. The old joke about a police officer explaining the difference between slowing down and stopping comes to mind. If something prevented a hammer from hitting you in the face, would it hit you still, just less often?

you're getting hung up on semantics. i have never held the position that nobody with a vaccine can catch covid.

Still not preventing it. You keep moving the goalpost to "reduce". You were using "prevent" earlier. Typical you.

see above

But not prevented. Remember that word.

see above

[hater]

excellent. you've finally spit it out.

now, if somebody is not currently testing positive for the virus, are they able to transmit it to somebody else? no.

Yes you dumb they can trasnmit

and do the vaccines reduce someone's chances of testing positive? yes. i can send you links to any number of studies or results of clinical trials supporting this.

This has nothing to do with transmission ya dumb