Did you even read the Lancet article?

" However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people."

Repeat...."This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people."

"The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”. Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients, requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals."

Repeat..."Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals."

When you don't even understand your own sources and think they say things the opposite of what they actually say.... well it tells us all we need to know.

Mask - you said I ignored the N95 numbers when I'd specifically mentioned them. And are now trying to hide from that. The end.

“The Covid pandemic will be remembered not only as a public health crisis but as a profound moral failure. It exposed the terrifying ease with which democratic societies can abandon ethical principles ….”

“The response to Covid was less a triumph of science than a capitulation to authoritarian impulses, enabled not so much by tyrants as by the moral cowardice of professionals entrusted with safeguarding the public good – especially the medical elite”.

mhaze,

Did YOU actually read the full study, or just skim for quotes that fit your argument and hope that I didn't notice? Because what you’re citing only applies to later variants like Delta and Omicron, not the earlier strains, which is exactly what I pointed out.

Early on, vaccines reduced infection and transmission. Studies from 2020 to early 2021 showed that vaccinated people were significantly less likely to get infected, meaning they were also less likely to spread the virus. That’s why early public health messaging emphasized vaccines as a way to stop the spread - because, at the time, they did.

Then Delta and Omicron changed that. Later studies, like the one you quoted, found that vaccinated individuals had similar viral loads to unvaccinated individuals, meaning the vaccines didn’t stop transmission as effectively for those variants. But this does not mean vaccines never reduced transmission - it means their effectiveness changed as the virus evolved.

So when you repeat, "Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals," you’re only telling half the story. This was not the case for the original strain or early variants, where vaccines did reduce infection and transmission. Cherry-picking later studies while ignoring earlier ones is intellectually dishonest, and it's certainly not what someone does when they're here to challenge their beliefs.

I already clarified the N95 issue. You listed the N95 data, but you framed it as if 50% effectiveness was useless, which is absurd. In a pandemic, even partial reduction in exposure matters. You didn’t "catch me hiding" anything - I just refused to let you twist the findings.

Instead of quote-mining, engage with the full picture. You keep presenting selective half-truths instead of acknowledging how the science evolved. You're drowning here and the panic is evident.

"Cherry-picking later studies"

But but but....YOU picked the study!!

"Because what you’re citing only applies to later variants like Delta and Omicron, not the earlier strains, which is exactly what I pointed out."

Where? Where in the study you cited to support your claims does it say anything like that?

You just made it up and are now trying to hide from it. You're becoming quite expert at hiding once chipped.

" Studies from 2020 to early 2021 showed that vaccinated people were significantly less likely to get infected"

There was no general roll out of vaccines until early 2021. There were no studies done in 2020 or until mid-2021. Just another made up claim.

You're running out of straws to grab.

You said I "conveniently ignore[d]" findings about N05 masks when I'd mentioned them only a few hours before. You implied I was deliberately hiding information when I was doing the exact opposite. Why is it beyond your capacity to acknowledge that?

mhaze,

You’re trying to turn this into a game of gotcha instead of actually discussing the science. Let’s clear this up (again).

Vaccines and Transmission:
You’re saying no studies were done in 2020 or early 2021? That’s just wrong. Clinical trials happened in 2020, and by early 2021, real-world studies were already showing that vaccinated people were getting infected less often, which naturally meant they were spreading the virus less.

Take Israel, for example. A New England Journal of Medicine study from February 2021 found that Pfizer’s vaccine reduced symptomatic infection by 94%. Fewer infections mean fewer chances to spread the virus. This was before Delta and Omicron, when vaccines were more effective at preventing infection.

So no, I didn’t “make that up.” The data was there - you just don’t want to acknowledge it.

The Lancet Study:
You’re still acting like the Lancet study you quoted applies to all variants, but it focused on Delta and Omicron, which we already know had higher breakthrough infections. That’s exactly why public health messaging changed over time. Early on, the vaccines did reduce infection and spread. Later, that effect dropped as the virus evolved.

If you want to argue that vaccines never slowed transmission, you’d have to explain why transmission rates were lower in highly vaccinated populations before Delta took over.

N95s:
You keep dodging the point here. The issue isn’t whether you mentioned N95s - it’s how you framed them. You threw out the “50% reduction” number like it was proof that masks were useless. But a 50% reduction in transmission is actually a big deal, especially in crowded settings. The goal was always about reducing spread, not eliminating it the virus completely.

At this point, you’re just dodging and nitpicking instead of actually addressing the evidence. If you want to have a real discussion, let’s deal with the full picture - not just the parts that suit you.

"bUt BuT..." Yeah, nice try, mhaze. "But" nothing. Your replies reek of desperation.

Still ducking for cover?

You picked the study and then claimed I cherry-picked it.

You claimed it confirmed that the vaccines inhibited transmission in earlier variants. But you can't show where it says that.

"Because what you’re citing only applies to later variants like Delta and Omicron, not the earlier strains, which is exactly what I pointed out."

Where? Where in the study you cited to support your claims does it say anything like that? I can't help but notice and point out that you've dodged that.

" that Pfizer’s vaccine reduced symptomatic infection by 94%." Correct. But that's got nothing to say about transmission rates. Why does that simple point elude you?

During a European Parliament hearing on October 10, 2022, Janine Small, Pfizer’s President , testified in response to questions from Dutch MEP Rob Roos. Roos asked whether the vaccine was tested for stopping transmission before its rollout, and Small replied, “No… ”

But we are now back to your absolutist approach - if its not 100% then its not true. My original point was that the authorities claimed the vaccine stopped transmissions. We know now and they knew then that wasn't true. But you now want to pretend that because it might've sorta perhaps stopped some symptomatic infections then what I said was wrong. Not playing any more. The vaccine didn't stop transmission. Some, but some, studies indicated there might have been some sort of reduction in viral load, but tat isn't even close to the same thing as you're claiming.

The population was told that we had to get the vaccine to stop the virus. We were told that there'd be a pandemic of the unvaccinated. We were told that we had to get the vaccine to protect our family. But the evidence (want me to explain that word to you?) is that was wrong. But we had vaccine mandates. People who weren't really endangered by the virus were required to take a potentially dangerous medicine on the pain of losing jobs, careers and livelihoods.

They were lied to and no one was ever held responsible.