CDC的director8月就在CNN的采访里承认了,所以这不算什么新消息。我还是那个问题,既然阻断不了病毒传播为何要强制所有人打疫苗?为何说打疫苗可以降低阳性数从而结束疫情? NEW: Study published in the Lancet discusses reasons why policymakers cannot ignore the fully vaccinated as a "source of transmission". 1. Studies showing "viral load did not differ by vaccination status". 2. During September and October, 89.7% of cases reported among citizens 60 years and older in the UK were fully vaccinated. 3. The CDC identified four of the top five counties with the highest percentage of fully vaccinated population (99.9–84.3%) as “high” transmission counties. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext?s=08#
回复 2楼的帖子 请你解释一下,如果viral load did not differ by vaccination status 打了疫苗如何能降低传染的可能性? 降低重症和死亡不是强制所有人打疫苗的理由,重症的人只占0.3%,很多人不觉得自己会重症为啥要打实验都没做完的疫苗去给药厂当小白鼠而且打疫苗出了问题还得后果自负?
回复 4楼的帖子 The CDC identified four of the top five counties with the highest percentage of fully vaccinated population (99.9–84.3%) as “high” transmission counties. 这四个国家降低了吗?
回复 2楼的帖子 请你解释一下,如果viral load did not differ by vaccination status 打了疫苗如何能降低传染的可能性? 降低重症和死亡不是强制所有人打疫苗的理由,重症的人只占0.3%,很多人不觉得自己会重症为啥要打实验都没做完的疫苗去给药厂当小白鼠而且打疫苗出了问题还得后果自负? CoolTeeth 发表于 2021-12-01 10:48
回复 6楼的帖子 “但是vaccinated person被传染上的可能性低于没打过疫苗的人啊”请给出数据支持你这个结论。我身边现在大把打了疫苗感染上的,各国的breakthrough 数据也是显示打了疫苗的感染的非常多,你可以去看看最近苏格兰的数据,感染者里打了疫苗的占80%,跟他们的接种率差不多。 还有我上边说的“The CDC identified four of the top five counties with the highest percentage of fully vaccinated population (99.9–84.3%) as “high” transmission counties.” 你如何解释?
NEW: Study published in the Lancet discusses reasons why policymakers cannot ignore the fully vaccinated as a "source of transmission".
1. Studies showing "viral load did not differ by vaccination status".
2. During September and October, 89.7% of cases reported among citizens 60 years and older in the UK were fully vaccinated.
3. The CDC identified four of the top five counties with the highest percentage of fully vaccinated population (99.9–84.3%) as “high” transmission counties.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext?s=08#
请你解释一下,如果viral load did not differ by vaccination status 打了疫苗如何能降低传染的可能性?
降低重症和死亡不是强制所有人打疫苗的理由,重症的人只占0.3%,很多人不觉得自己会重症为啥要打实验都没做完的疫苗去给药厂当小白鼠而且打疫苗出了问题还得后果自负?
就是这么样的感觉,一点点的降低传播,大家一起来合作对抗病毒传播。
The CDC identified four of the top five counties with the highest percentage of fully vaccinated population (99.9–84.3%) as “high” transmission counties.
这四个国家降低了吗?
如果一个vaccinated person得了breakthrough infection,那么也许经过viral replication,这个人的viral load跟没打过疫苗的人会是差不多,但是vaccinated person被传染上的可能性低于没打过疫苗的人啊
戴安全带在没有车祸的情况下会有短期副作用和长期未知副作用吗?如果这疫苗跟流感疫苗一样安全即使效果不好我也不会介意去接种,但是实际情况并非如此。
“但是vaccinated person被传染上的可能性低于没打过疫苗的人啊”请给出数据支持你这个结论。我身边现在大把打了疫苗感染上的,各国的breakthrough 数据也是显示打了疫苗的感染的非常多,你可以去看看最近苏格兰的数据,感染者里打了疫苗的占80%,跟他们的接种率差不多。
还有我上边说的“The CDC identified four of the top five counties with the highest percentage of fully vaccinated population (99.9–84.3%) as “high” transmission counties.” 你如何解释?