Do you mean they can not stop any of the virus laden particles coming in or going out of someone wearing a mask?
They can, but Cultellus is incapable of responding truthfully to the question.
What kind of marble-brained fool thinks it’s just the virus free floating in and out of a human body? Good Lord I’ve read some stupid crap by the Magidiots on this board, but WaterDog might’ve just jumped the shark. Like. He can’t come back from that. It’s one thing to be a troll, but it’s another thing to be genuinely retarded. He’s just outed himself as a simpleton.
This is exactly right. The vaccine was a narrow shot at the easy stuff. It made the mild stuff and the bad stuff worse. The boosters are going to be infinite now.
You do make up BS as you go. I noticed you have avoided answering my question about editing the first two lines of an Abstract you quoted. I suspect you don't want to admit you did so, or that you copied and posted from some other source. Question is why take out two sentences in an abstract that is not that long. The clue is in the second sentence of the abstract.
Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens?<Sentence 1
Conventional wisdom is that natural selection will remove highly lethal pathogens if host death greatly reduces transmission. <Sentence 2
Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. < Sentence 3
I already reposted those sentences, and you seem to think there is a magic clue in there about why I omitted them once in a quote, but included the entire abstract.
Okay. Tell us the clue.
It just seems that the abstract was not that long, so why not quote to whole thing unless something in it did not fit the narrative you are promoting. That is what we see in sentence 2 where they explain the kind of pathogen that does not fit the SARS-CoV-2. While it a serious virus that kills some of it's hosts. Nothing indicates it would be close to what it needs to qualify as the kind of pathogen the paper is discussing. It is discussing highly lethal pathogens that kill most hosts and don't allow enough transmission that they burn themselves out naturally. This would mean a transmission rate below 1.
I already reposted those sentences, and you seem to think there is a magic clue in there about why I omitted them once in a quote, but included the entire abstract.
Okay. Tell us the clue.
It just seems that the abstract was not that long, so why not quote to whole thing unless something in it did not fit the narrative you are promoting. That is what we see in sentence 2 where they explain the kind of pathogen that does not fit the SARS-CoV-2. While it a serious virus that kills some of it's hosts. Nothing indicates it would be close to what it needs to qualify as the kind of pathogen the paper is discussing. It is discussing highly lethal pathogens that kill most hosts and don't allow enough transmission that they burn themselves out naturally. This would mean a transmission rate below 1.
And this still suggests that vaccination would be preferred. If a more dangerous variant evolves, it will still infect the larger population, but vaccinated individuals will have greater protection against a severe reaction.
Are you crazy Themis? Sentence 2 does not explain the type of pathogen that does not fit SARS-Cov-2. It says nothing of the sort. Uh, Themis, it kills its hosts. That is serious. It is okay to process information, Themis. You do not have to filter it this hard to fit an argument or ideology. Calm the “F” down.
I think you are just pissed you got caught, and yes it certainly is not describing SARS-Cov-2 since it doesn't fit what the article is talking about. It describes a virus so virulent that it has to kill it's host's such that transmission rates are under 1 so that it will burn itself out. But hey, we both know anti-vaxxers are desperate to try and look legitimate scientifically.
And this still suggests that vaccination would be preferred. If a more dangerous variant evolves, it will still infect the larger population, but vaccinated individuals will have greater protection against a severe reaction.
With that high of mortality rates you would need, yes people would prefer a vaccine that allows them to live.
Missing the whole point. The leaky vaccine accelerated a more deadly variant that affected the vaccinated and unvaccinated. But you just keep making crap up, Themis.
Actually it's about a leaky vaccine that MAY create a more virulent virus instead of letting it burn itself by killing off it's host's a rate that is not sustainable by the virus. That is not what we have with SARS-Cov-2. It was never virulent enough to burn itself out by killing at a rate that would not allow it to transmit at a rate higher than 1. SARS-Cov-2 is not close to this kind of virility, so it doesn't need a leaky vaccine to help it survive and potentially mutate to more virulent forms. This means it will stick around in the un-vaccinated population and mutate potentially into more virulent strains, which is exactly what we see happening. The delta variant came out of the un-vaccinated population, which is expected because the virus is not bad enough to burn itself out.
Option A —> Virus spreads amongst unvaccinated population, possibly developing into a more deadly variant, affecting even those who had previously contracted the virus.
Option B —> Virus spreads amongst vaccinated population, possibly developing into a more deadly variant, affecting even those who had previously been vaccinated.
Difference: Cultellus bitches about something with the second scenario, but is incapable of deciding what it is.
In either situation —> Vaccination likely slows the death rate and mitigates effects of the more deadly variant.
