From The Lancet:
Short story:
Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts. Host–virus interactions early in infection may shape the entire viral trajectory.
Yeah. So we (as in those of like minds) said this MONTHS AGO.
It is therefore beyond any argument that so called "vaccination" "Stops the spread".
It also means that any and all mandates with the stated goal of "stopping the spread" have absolutely NO BASIS IN FACT.
And let's be clear "household settings" is not much different than "office" or "work" settings depending upon the type of office arrangement. It may be the case that you are "safer" in an office than at home.
Next:
Viral load growth rate (delta) population level. Do I even need to explain this?
Viral load growth rate (delta) within sample level. Do I need to explain this too?
Also:
"Host–virus interactions early in infection may shape the entire viral trajectory."
We've been saying this since March/April of last year. WE SAID early intervention is KEY. We were right the entire time.
Also, I want to go back to a post I made in regards to the Israel study where they made claims about breakthrough infections being due to unvaccinated people. I said:
Maybe it's just me but I don't like the fact that they said "suspected" rather than confirmed. We know that we have a narrative that the "unvaccinated" are responsible for infecting the "vaccinated".
How do we know this? Were they tested PRIOR to the hospital staff? How do we know the household member wasn't infected by the hospital staff member? After all they admit that many of their cases were totally asymptomatic. If I were writing the piece I would have said "we confirmed that the source was a household member". Look, these people don't use words by accident.
Similarly they suspect that others got infected from other [unvaccinated] co-workers, yet again, they do not establish or show in the paper whether that is *actually* the case.
So I think this Lancet piece supports my issue with that paper. In this paper they ran tests against the samples to make sure they knew that the infections were linked:
"). 12 (39%) of 31 infections in fully vaccinated household contacts arose from fully vaccinated epidemiologically linked index cases, further confirmed by genomic and virological analysis in three index case–contact pairs."
That's how you make a clam of source. "Confirmed" not "suspect". "Suspect" is garbage.
We should be done with this now.