LeoMC

crowley said:

LeoMC said:

crowley said:

LeoMC said:

I don't know about Texas, but in some European countries the percentage of vaccinated people that needed hospitalised treatment (mainly against covid) was higher than the percentage of unvaccinated people (before omicron, in UK there were 2 hospitalised vaccinated individuals for every unvaccinated one).

That only became true in the UK in autumn of last year, when vaccination rates exceeded 70%*.  Given that a single shot of a vaccine is expected to provide ~80% (depending on which vaccine) protection from symptoms requiring hospitalisation it is entirely predictable that there is a point where vaccinated people contracting the virus exceed the unvaccinated.  That's simple mathematics.  Infection rates also won't be the same, given that vaccinated people include the high risk people, and that people tend to take less care once they'd had the shot.  Also note that the number of people in hospital who had two shots or more of a vaccine were miniscule.  Finally, note that all hospitalisations are not equal - vaccination dramatically reduces the need for intensive care, and reduces mortality rates down to almost irrelevant, especially a full course**.

That proves again that you know only what mainstream propaganda tells you to know.
In UK the percentage of fully  (14 days after the 2nd shot) vaccinated people hospitalised exceeded the number of unvaccinated in the summer - I believe it was in July - and kept on growing ever since and so did the death rate (by the end of the summer, over 70% of deceased were fully vaccinated).
I'm not gonna explain why that happened it just did; in the rest of Europe there was another ratio, but by the end of the year - when omicron started to interfere - the same thing happened (some studies are showing that the protection with 2 doses of vaccine is negative - as in you're more protected unvaccinated), but not because the vaccines didn't work, but because of the human behaviour.
Vaccines were/are indeed effective for sick people and people over 60+ of age and were/are useless for everyone else (even USA started to admit that vaccines are useless for young healthy people).
As for the masks: as long as there is no problem when tens of thousands people cheer and shout to a bunch a dudes in shorts that run after a ball, I'm pretty sure that a few hundreds that look at phones in a room with good ventilation will be safe even though they won't be wearing a mask...

And not a single source to be seen. Won’t even bother reading to the end.

crowley said:

LeoMC said:

GeorgeBMac said:

LeoMC said:

GeorgeBMac said:

LeoMC said:

teejay2012 said:

Without masks, there will be no store policy to physically distance. 'If' I go into a store, I will wear a mask and treat those without masks like I do people with bad breath by politely backing away from them. No doubt some will be offended but my health is more important than their feelings.

Maybe you should consider a Hazmat suit...

No, a mask, especially a good one, is fine.

I'm sure it is, but a Hazmat suit would be safer - don't you wanna be safe?

my point.

You have no point, dude; there are plenty of studies that show masks are pretty much useless and none that show they have any effect on containing the spread of viruses (have you heard about Sweden? that country was hardly affected by sars-cov-2 even though practically nobody wore a face covering).

Have you heard about Sweden?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-23/swedish-prime-minister-admits-strategy-to-stop-virus-fell-short