Absolutely but you can’t then pass on the passive smoke & infect somebody else with it who has a far less chance than c99%
isn’t that what the vacc is for to protect the vulnerable? Surely thats the entire purpose, as long as they are vacc’d why does it matter if Brian 3 doors away chooses not to have the vacc. I truly don’t understand it mate. I’m not a scientist like you. In my simple eyes have the vacc you have a level of protection, how are the unvaccinated an enhanced risk to the vaccinated?
You’ve completely avoided the point. A whiff of smoke does not kill me within a few days if ever. Nor does it give an opportunity to infect others within hours and potentially infect many people subsequently.
Last week, UEFA said it would switch venues for Champions League games scheduled to be played in France and Italy to skirt compulsory vaccination rules. It means clubs with unvaccinated players will not have to field weakened teams if drawn to play in those countries.
The vaccs reduce the severity of symptoms, reduce the chance of hospitalisation & reduce the risk of passing it on, Vulnerable people are still vulnerable & deserve the chance of a life with minimal threat of being infected. The burden on the NHS, the main reason we still have restrictions in place, is because it’s near on full of unvaccinated people. Get a vaccination, get the boosters when required (as happens without drama with other vaccinations) & we’ll return to a more normalish lifestyle. As I’ve said before if the vaccine wasn’t researched properly it will be the biggest cover up ever involving 10s of 1000s of people from many countries. People should seriously take the leaflet out of any medication they take & read the list of possible side affects. In most cases it’ll be massive. They’ll still take the pills though. I’d bet 95% of people have never read the leaflet, they just open the box & pop a pill without any thought of what’s in it, how it was produced or how it was researched. Kids have vaccinations, this one’s no different. They also have boosters to these vaccinations. Most of us will have the mark on our arm from when we had ours. We’re all here to tell the tale. Yet polio, measles, mumps, rubella are rare. Usually they surface because of the unvaccinated. How many people have had a malaria jab, or similar, to travel abroad. All paying for it? Yet how many also asked for a list of side affects, research papers, ingredients & how many have got ill or died as result of having it? People are clutching at straws trying to justify not having a safe vaccination when in reality they’re the reason we are where we are (an incompetent government doesn’t help either but that’s another story).
From what I understand, the transmission levels are lower in the vaccinated. The omicron variant of the virus seems to be generally in the nose in the vaccinated and it gets to the lungs in the unvaccinated. This means that the virus develops and the virus count is far higher. I only heard this on the car radio and wasn’t really listening that hard, but it seems probable.
I get all that (I think!) but how are the unvaccinated a threat to the vacc’d? I accept the vacc is not total protection but it’s as much as we can get right now. So back to my original question …how does unvaccinated Brian from 3 doors away give an enhanced risk to someone who is vacc’d?
I get that….but if you’ve had the vacc you have a level of protection from everyone. So why does the unvaccinated pose an enhanced threat? That’s the bit of the puzzle I don’t get
An example is that somebody who is immunosupressed (many causes, not just cancer treatments) is still vulnerable despite being vaccinated.
But that would be the case before covid, before the vaccination. The “risk” is not increased from unvaccinated as the vaccinated nurse treating her could in theory pass the virus on I’m not trying to argue. I just don’t understand
Not looked into it so this may be bollocks. I believe the vaccination attacks the protein spikes that the virus uses to attach to your body. As less molecules attach themselves the risk of transmission must also reduce.
From what I've read, if you've already had the virus, you're at least as protected as a vaxed person, so the call for a vaccine passport misses that aspect.
Not all are in hospital. They are already at risk. If we can reduce that risk isn’t that the right thing to do?
The unvaccinated become infected easier, more severely and for longer, thus generating more infective viral particles over a longer period of time, which can infect others. "Superspreaders" if you like (am not keen on the term). Immunity can come from vaccination or infection. Once everyone has a high degree of immunity, the pandemic stops. Although you can still become infected, the severity of the infection is reduced and we end up with an endemic disease, similar to (but possibly more severe than) the common cold
I get all that. But if you’re vacc’d you are protected against whatever the unvaccinated can give you or what the vaccinated can give you. Are we saying the unvaccd carry a more stronger or dangerous variant?
Not much evidence when 85% are vaccinated yet there are 200,000 new cases daily meaning a running total of 3,000,000 carrying the virus. ( just numbers heard on the news no guarantee of accuracy)
