>>13361644>First, RRR has typically been based on risk of infectionOk fair enough I was wrong about that
>looking at the outcome of death is irrelevant when examining opportunities for the virus to mutateNo, if you die from COVID you are certainly among the group who will NOT be a huge transmission vector: you will be bed ridden and isolated in short order, reducing your chance to spread your infection.
There would be a sort of Goldilocks zone between completely stopping infection and getting infected but immediately recognizing you're infected and self isolating. In this zone a person who is contagious doesn't realize it, or it's so mild it's just ignored, and goes out in public spreading the infection to many people. That is worse case scenario, we want nobody to be in that zone.
>Anyone who is infected supplies the virus the opportunity to mutate, so it's best to prevent people from becoming infected.Completely stopping infection would be best, sure.
>It needs to bind in order to replicate, and it ...Yes I agreed with this sentence.
>We have studies with medical workers showing that the majority didn't even develop asymptomatic infections. The virus was simply shut down in its tracks. This sounds suspect. They knew they had an infection but it was "stopped in it's tracks" thanks to the vaccine? How would they know there was an infection if it was stopped in its tracks?
>For the mRNA vaccines, the number is around 85-90%, even against the variants.Again going back to the Goldilocks zone where conditions are just right for spread: we want to ensure we're not creating a perfect storm of a population of asymptomatic human vectors who think they can do whatever they want since they have the jab. I don't think the current policy is even remotely taking this goal into consideration and I don't think the evidence can justify ignoring this eventuality.
You say it works against the variants. If not we are in for a shitstorm this winter worst than last.
