The graph you’ve posted a link to is also based on estimates, and even if it was accurate it still shows, for example in the 40s age group which the OP may well be, that you’re just as likely to catch it, and therefore spread it if you’re vaccinated or unvaccinated.
Yes, I literally said that they are all estimates in the preceding posts. Precise population figures do not exist.
On the age group around 40s - this is where the other potential confounders (as set out in the report you misused) come in. I set out one of them - the current outbreak is very concentrated in teenagers and what is very likely to be their parents. Parents as a demographic group may have different vaccine uptake to non-parents (they show different behaviours across many different fields), as well as the known issues that the vaccinated and unvaccinated are not identical behavioural groups, and the issue I raised earlier about recent infection as a reason for non-vaccination which may mean the unvaccinated group is disproportionately less immunologically naive than the overall national infection rates might suggest if distributed evenly.
There’s also a weird and interesting socioeconomic flip going on at the moment. The current wave is really weirdly distributed. Again, we know different socioeconomic groups have different vaccination levels.
So many reasons you can’t use those figures to determine vaccine effectiveness based on raw case rates.
I’m guessing you don’t believe the data on the Yellow Card reporting website aswell relating to side effects.
On what are you basing that statement?
I can’t remember the names of the scientists who said they aren’t effective against transmission recently but they said any effect they may have reducing transmission drops off after 3 months.
Ah ok, yes that is based on household transmission studies. I linked upthread.
All I’m saying is that new information and data is becoming available all the time and people have a right to be cautious if they want to be.
No, that is not all you are saying. You were misrepresenting official data in a way the publishers said the data should not be used, drawing conclusions from it that cannot be supported by that data and stating them as fact. That’s misinformation, and it is reasonable to expect to be challenged or it.
Please stop insinuating I’m anti-Vaxx as I’m very much not.
I have made no insinuations. I have very openly and clearly said you were using data in a way that it could not be accurately used, and that in doing so you were spreading misinformation. Your motives for that are less interesting to me than not letting the misinformation stand unchallenged.