I already posted this, but the CDC decided that vaccines reduced transmission enough to stop recommending that vaccinated people wear masks. I already posted this link, which discusses that: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html.
Sorry bud but that article isn’t peer reviewed. Maybe do a quick google search and maybe you can educate yourself on what that means. A published article has to go through a series of steps before it can be considered peer reviewed. Again do you think 149 people tested with no numbers provided is conclusive evidence to your claim. It’s not even a good opinion piece. And here we go again…”Well I am going to believe the cdc even though they have presented zero evidence to support it. 😂 Hey guys let’s play the speculation game. The cdc says get vaccinated even though there is only a 1% uptick in immunity! Let’s do it because that 1% sure is worth it! 😂
Uh oh don’t look now but LA county is ignoring cdc recommendations. I guess they don’t believe in the cdc science. 😂
Yeah, you should always make a gut decision and never change course as more information becomes available.
MRSA and meningitis are pretty awful afflictions that are incredibly dangerous so I don't really understand your argument here. A pandemic caused by a virus as transmissible as Covid and as deadly as meningitis would eliminate somewhere between 15-50% of the world population.
The study the article is about is literally peer reviewed. You either have no clue what you’re talking about and are just repeating buzz words, or you’re just wanting to be a dick. Either way, it’s not really worth my time at this point.
I can’t really say, but I’d guess it has to do with physicians having more medical expertise. More charitably, it could have to do with class.
www.webmd.com
It literary is not. Do you need me to post a link to what constitutes as a peer reviewed article? Your so good at providing links to opinion pieces I may have assumed incorrectly that you could google it yourself. Even with that said I already addressed the study just to appease you anyway. There is a reason you decided to argue about what makes a article peer reviewed or not. You decided not to discuss it because we both know a sample size of less than 200 people is laughable to make any kind of conclusion about the general populace. Not only that they didn’t even present any statistical data of their findings. Again you try to argue your case with opinion pieces all the while hiding behind “cdc” regulations as the end all be all. Hell the state of California doesn’t even stand by those regulations. Don’t believe me? Then explain away what is happening in LA county right now. Like I said it’s ok to admit you don’t know. You never would because you are a very close minded individual who thinks my way is the only way.
While jama produces a ton of peer reviewed articles you can easily look at their front page to discover numerous opinion pieces. Even with that said I tried to discuss the findings with Chicago and instead of addressing the findings he decided to move the goal posts to something else. Why is that you suppose? I could have argued about double blind verse blind peer reviewed data but why bother? I went ahead and addressed the findings.
Close personal friend? I’m sure no one lies on here... I heard you work at a Ben n Jerry’s and weigh 350 lbs, am I doing this right?
You’re being extremely obtuse, which is why this is my last reply to you as long as you’re acting that way. As I already said, it’s an article summarizing a peer reviewed study. I posted it because I thought people would like reading that more than a peer reviewed study. Here’s what the peer reviewed study has to say about its peer review: “Peer review information Nature thanks Thushan de Silva, Pei-Yong Shi and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.”
Again this is the last time I am going to respond to you. I tried to debate the merits of the findings with you but all you want to do is deflect and call names. You continuously want to argue or move the goal post. That’s what people like you tend to do when they have nothing of value to add. Continue muddying up the waters guy because that’s what you do best.
I know right. The guy must be a politician. He presents an argument only to back it up with link after link of “his experts” opinion pieces no statistical data anywhere to be found an expects everyone to just take it as fact. When challenged he moves the goal post doesn’t present any discernible data and commences with the name calling. The guy is a fraud. The sad part is I would love for there to be more hard data on natural covid19 immunity. I would have loved for him to present actual hard data on several topics but all he wants to do is argue and hide behind cdc recommendations without any numerical evidence. As we can see certain states are not even buying into their recommendations.
www.nature.com
Says the guy who has presented nothing of value at all. I can see why you would back Chicago. 😂You know what they say about birds of feather…
Saber I don’t know if you meant to quote me or not. My response that you quoted was in response to a link Chicago posted not the one I posted from Nature. 😂
I have at least posted a link with info. What have you added? All you have added is butt hurt commentary defending your boyfriend. Your more than welcome to add more data points although I doubt you could add an original intelligent thought that didn’t involve Chicago. 😂
Nice quote. What does this prove exactly. Does it say what percentage of those have had previous Covid infection? Of course 95% are unvaccinated. If you are vaccinated you are less likely to display severe illness. Is that even in question? Those who contract Covid who are vaccinated are more likely to be asymptomatic.
