Re: Infected cases
DJO:
> Slightly disingenuous way of looking at it. ... transmit
Very incorrect and misleading language to use then, if you actually intend to refer to Transmission rather than Infection. That's why I was careful to be specific when replying to your language, as your language referred to Infectiousness but was only non-incorrect if you meant Transmission.
Your point re Transmission is, in theory and in the general case of most other vaccines, valid. In practice and w.r.t. Covid vaccines, however, you should have made clear that this reduction in Transmission for the vaccinated lasts only a matter of a few months, because the protection vs Infection decays extremely quickly -- only the protection vs Hospitalisation&Death remains at a reasonable level. After those few months, there is no appreciable difference in Transmission rates regardless of vaccination status. You did not mention this. So regardless of whether you meant to speak more broadly than your explicit wording, your comment still doesn't stand.
>> infectiousness is not directly related to symptoms at all
>Never said it was, it is however related to how likely people are to contract C19
I strongly suggest you get clear in your head, and your comments, the difference between Infectiousness and overall Transmission. Right now, you are jumbling them.
> Also in most cases vaccinated people recover sooner so are contagious for less time.
This is quite wrong, I'm afraid. There is no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated infected persons' total infectiousness, because people are only materially infectious in the early stages of the disease. The infectious period is well inside the normal length of infection for both vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
