I don't think that specific testing of the direct impact of transmissibility was carried out prior to the release of the vaccines. Why would there be? Their efficacy in training our immune system to recognise and deal with the virus was established, alongside their safety, and there was a pressing need to roll them out asap. Why delay to test something that was a side issue but theoretically established anyway?

Anything that broke the chain of transmission stopped transmission. Not every transmission, but some. That included social distancing, lockdowns, mask-wearing and then the vaccines.

If a vaccinated person, even if infected, shows fewer symptoms, they have a lower capacity to pass it on. Thus vaccines effectively reduce transmission.

This fuss about the vaccines' capacity to stop transmission is a complete red herring tossed into the pot by those with a political agenda.

I wondered how long it would be before you started to attack ChatGPT. No comment from you, me or an AI bot is evidence. The advantage an AI bot has is that it can source evidence and reject non-evidence. It can check authenticity and reliability and screen out misinformation from information.

The next thing I expect to hear is that ChatGPT has a political bias!

Whilst the evidence might be empirical it is far from being simply speculative. It is based on experience and common sense. From memory alone, I think you are right that transmissions tended to increase even after the vaccination programme started but there would have been many reasons for that. You identify the weather as one, but the easing of restrictions and the emergence of vaccine-resistant variants were both also important.

That though does nothing to diminish the contribution to lowering the infection rate that vaccines would have made. We only know what was, and not what would have been had there been no vaccines. Simple logic dictates that a vaccinated person with an infection, being protected from severe infection, showing fewer symptoms but required to isolate at home, is not going to infect so many others. An unvaccinated infected person, who generally suffers greater symptoms will infect more, even if they test and stay at home.Not all did test.

Were vaccinated people told they were safe from transmitting the virus? Or were they told the vaccines would stop the transmissions? May seem the same thing but it's not. The vaccines will eventually induce herd immunity and wipe out the original virus strain. The variants were what caused the need for a reappraisal and revision of the messaging.

That's not misinformation at all. Things change and when they do so must the advice. I don't want anyone's civil liberties restricted. I want them enhanced and evenly spread. With every right, there is an equal responsibility. Without both neither is available. It seems to me you want to avoid your responsibilities whilst complaining about your rights.

“We’re making sure health care workers are vaccinated, because if you seek care at a health care facility, you should have the certainty that the people providing that care are protected from COVID and cannot spread it to you.”

Joe Biden.

The public should not be told something as fact when it's not actually proven. The public were told that you weren't going to infect others if you were vaccinated and that was never established.

The public were lied to.....if you defend that you need to recognise that you are defending misleading the public.

Here is Dr Campbell with an update on excess deaths, which remain high worldwide.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Jun 2023 9.41pm)

When a discredited YouTuber like Campbell refers to something said by someone like David Davies on this subject the bs antenna starts to pick up strong signals. It seems that the claims he made are themselves discredited and only part of a familiar pattern of such claims. Many of which are repeated by Campbell, for his own dubious purposes.

[Link]

[Link]

Anyone who continues to reference Dr John Campbell as a source of information are themselves discredited. My new friend describes it thus:-

"Lack of specialization: Critics argue that Dr. Campbell's background as a nurse and educator does not necessarily make him an expert in all the topics he covers. They believe that his content sometimes lacks the depth and specificity that experts in particular fields can provide.

Oversimplification and sensationalism: Some critics suggest that Dr. Campbell tends to oversimplify complex medical and scientific concepts in his videos, potentially leading to a misrepresentation of information. They argue that this oversimplification can result in sensationalism or the spreading of inaccurate or misleading information.

Alternative treatments and supplements: Dr. Campbell has occasionally discussed or promoted alternative treatments or supplements that lack strong scientific evidence or consensus support. Critics argue that this can give a platform to unproven or potentially harmful interventions, leading to confusion among viewers seeking evidence-based medical advice.

Handling of scientific studies: Critics have raised concerns about Dr. Campbell's interpretation and presentation of scientific studies. They claim that he may cherry-pick studies that support his narrative or fail to provide a balanced analysis by considering the full body of evidence.

Self-promotion and conflicts of interest: Some critics argue that Dr. Campbell's online presence and monetization of his content may influence the information he provides or lead to conflicts of interest. They question whether his motivations may prioritize popularity or financial gain over accuracy or objective analysis."