You can get the virus at any point before or after vaccination. Immunisation does not and has never meant that you cannot carry a virus and be infectious.
What I meant with that was getting the disease and transmitting it (they very quickly talk about transmission going down generally from vaccines at 1:13:00 in the video I linked above). I said in that same post you can get the virus an unlimited amount of times even if you are have the very best immunity against it. Infection itself is a rather meaningless term and I bet if you ask the majority of the public about just the word "infection", they'd tell you it's a pretty bad thing.
Yes, lots of measures that governments have come up with are not strictly scientifically proven. But some of them are not really supposed to be: they are pragmatic fudges. The "six people" rule is a guideline to give people some functional social mixing, but to encourage them to think about and limit how much they do. If they say don't mix at all they know people will just disobey, and they don't want a free-for-all either. So they create a hopefully reasonable middle ground people might stick to and call it a rule. There is no precise justification for it, but it is designed under a principle of minimising contact to restrict spread, viewed in combination with other practicalities.
I don't mean this to say it was necessarily the best policy - overall, I think the British government created a series of fudges that in many cases caused counterproductive confusion. Nor do I mean it as a generic defence of any and all policy, as some of it is genuinely random garbage or based on nothing at all.
If you wanna give people functional social mixing, tell them OUTSIDE IS SAFE. Science backs that up. There was no reason to keep people trapped inside their homes during the summer months. And people got so fucking ridiculous with the virus all because of the news. People, like my aunt and uncle, were wiping down their car and groceries after they got home from the store for no reason as getting it via surfaces is extremely unlikely.
Here's this Chinese exercise video of a how to deal with an infected person. Notice how they are spraying sanitizer literally everywhere but the one place they actually should've sprayed it? It's like everyone lost all common sense over this.
You have been from the word go unrealistically optimistic about just almost everything. Be that Vit D, hydroxychloroquine, levels of herd immunity required, claims that Japan had somehow achieved mass immunisation with virtually no cases or casualties, or the effectiveness of immunity and vaccines generally. I understand that covid-19 is frustrating, depressing, even terrifying and thus a desire to see the positives, but a lot of what you call "fearmongering" is reasonable caution and responsibility, and you leave yourself open to the opposite accusation of encouraging complacency.
I'm following basic common sense and applying past knowledge to the current situation. For example, the worry that the vaccines wouldn't work over a mutated strain. If that was the "norm", vaccines would have never been a thing because viruses mutate faster than it takes to make a vaccine and we wouldn't have vaccines for other viruses. I had a friend that's a health care worker post on Facebook about the vaccine being pointless because of a the new strain. Same thing with the short-term immunity fear mongering, the previous very very similar virus (SARS from 2003) provides 17+ year immunity, and the re-infection stories were also misguided in their logic (like being infected doesn't really mean much of anything). How about those stories that found virus RNA on cruise ships weeks after they been vacated where they didn't tell you it was inactive RNA leading to people getting worried about touching things? Or the articles predicting that covid might be another flu that's always around when the flu itself is very unique and we know covid doesn't have those properties. Sure, there's an ever-so-slight chance of that being true but it's nothing to concern yourself about. We know different amounts of viral load impact how severe the disease is from animal studies with different viruses, thus masks lowering viral loads (even if they don't lower infections) is helpful. You don't need to run studies on every new virus to find out it behaves generally like other viruses. I'm also still willing to bet that my prediction from October from
this thread that restrictions will be basically gone by this Summer ends up being rather accurate because I saw that how much the virus was spreading again combined with the fact that the vaccine was close meaning herd immunity (through a combination of natural means and artificial) was going to hit at an accelerated pace.
Here's all the
data on all the treatments for Covid, no Twitter sources
. Hydroxy works to a degree, it's not some miracle cure, I never said it was. Vitamin D has been proven to at the bare minimum do what the $3,000 remdesivir can do which is lower the time of recovery. An Indian study giving people the inactive form of Vitamin D that the body takes a WEEK to process worked in lowering the time to getting a negative test. And, we know Vitamin D will help your immune system generally (not to mention all the covid related areas that it affects like ACE2), what's the harm in taking something we know that helps at least somewhat? A few cents a day. It's the same sense as wearing a mask. The Japanese survey I linked was about possibly half of Tokyo being infected, not herd immunity. I said it wasn't a thorough survey and said that even if only a million people in Tokyo got infected, just look at how low their fatality rate is with just good Vitamin D levels + wearing masks. Just maybe that should be something we try because it basically costs nothing and does no harm. If it doesn't help, nothing was lost, and if we don't do it (which we haven't) and we find out a year later it would've saved say 50,000 lives, then how stupid is to not have tried? Because there wasn't an RCT?
www.reuters.com
