The 0.08 here mean infected vaccinated individuals.
And as discussed before since none of the major vaccines around the world ars nasal the virus successfully infecting vaccinated individual will likely multiply and spread from nasal cavity before the immune system get to respond and take them down.
I already posted how there is a 75% reduction in asymptomatic among the vaccinated:https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/pfize ... -fold/amp/
The opposite of your theory is what real world data is showing. It will be a problem in the UnVacs, not the Vaccinated by a factor of 4 with just one dose!
I would assume the fully Vaccinated have an 8% chance of being an asymptomatic spreader vs. an UnVac.
Every bit of data is showing:
1. Vaccines work
2. Vaccines slow the spread of disease
3. We need a very high vaccination rate as with an Ro=4, in a respiratory virus, is going to spread quickly among clumps of unvaccinated.
Israel has shown (in my opinion), you cannot open up with a high UnVac population.
The only problem is (relative to population) low vaccine production.
Your data doesn't contradict what I said?
The 92% figure which induce 0.08x infection chance is the probability of detected infection, so whether the infection is symptomatic or not they'll both be counted.
And as for the reproduction in nasal cavity part, they are the process of reproduction "after" a person have been infected and subsequently the probability to spread to "others" and those aren't covered by stats you have shown
This isn't new stuff. Viral loading is a critical parameter in disease propagation and progression.
Borrowing from HIV researchhttps://www.researchgate.net/figure/Set ... _306039615
So if the vaccines reduce viral load below detection, that would mean less infection. In Covid19, a slow disease progression means asymptomatic to minor symptoms.
Here is a link on cutting the viral load with vaccine:https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2229 ... rna-pfizerTwo recent studies show some pretty favorable results — one from the UK that found that two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine cut down by 86 percent someone’s chances of developing an infection that they could pass along, the other a study in Israel that found an 89.4 percent reduction (though it should be noted that the Israeli study has yet to be fully released). These findings are consistent with what we know about vaccines and transmission in general.
The math was really basic, a small number of unvaccinated pose more risk than 10X the number of vaccinated. So natural risk reduction behavior will have the two camps split. My opinion is that if vaccinated avoid unvaccinated (as my friends are doing, they are nice about it, but it isn't hard to understand their reasoning), they have a very low risk. For a person with a low chance of getting Covid19, with a low chance of a high viral load thanks to the vaccine, means low risk.
The #1 reason, in my opinion, to get a vaccine is to reduce the risk of transmission to others. In an opinion piece, Johns Hopkins epidemiologists M. Kate Grabowski and Justin Lessler argued, “We are confident vaccination against COVID-19 reduces the chances of transmitting the virus.”Not everyone who has Covid-19 is equally likely to transmit it. A study recently published in The Lancet based on research from contact tracing in Spain has found a very strong association between viral load and how many other people the patient infects, as well as how serious the infections in other people are.
This isn’t very surprising. Viral load determines how much virus you are coughing or breathing into the air, which determines whether other people get sick. And if they get sick with an unusually large dose of the virus, it’ll have a “head start” at infecting them, and they’re likely to get sicker.
It comes down to the sicker someone becomes, the more people they might get sick as the more virus they shed. Since we know from my above New England Journal of Medicine link that the vaccinated are getting less severe cases and the new link, lower viral loadings, I think we have enough evidence.
Which is why those that believe that vaccines reduce transmission will want to hang around vaccinated people. Those that don't, won't care. It will all be about risk management.
Late edit, I found a nice link on finding out how much of the population must be vaccinated to reach herd immunity:https://ccdd.hsph.harvard.edu/2020/12/1 ... -immunity/
For Ro=3, and vaccine efficacy of x= 90%, need 74% vaccinated.
Anyway, that article avoids a long back and forth. There is uncertainty in x. F* can be above 100% where only the vaccinated benefit. In other words, only the selfish scenario.
But if x=.92 and R0=4, we need 81.5% vaccinated.
There will still be outbreaks. People will still die. But most of us will go back to living life normally.
At that point please see the New England Journal of medicine link for reduced hospitalization and severe impact.
Wow, the more I read, the worse it gets for the UnVac...
8 months without TV. The best decision of my life.