This is a misleading interpretation of the data in Iceland. According to the parent link, 18 people are hospitalized there, compared to ~80,000 in the US. Adjusted for population, that is a >75% lower overall hospitalization rate. Infection rates in unvaccinated are also more than 2x vaccinated in Iceland. Unless you misinterpret the data, it is undeniable that vaccines reduce transmission and incidence of severe disease.
The higher rates of death and serious illness among the unvaccinated has nothing to do with what I was arguing. You are willfully misinterpreting my argument.
I was arguing that given Iceland, at almost full vaccination, is having its biggest COVID wave yet, means full vaccination does not provide herd immunity, and thus every one will eventually get exposed to COVID irrespective of the vaccination rate.
So you can't make a sound argument that other people's decision to get the vaccine is increasing other people's chance of being exposed to COVID.
> I was arguing that given Iceland, at almost full vaccination, is having its biggest COVID wave yet
By ignoring the denominator you misinterpret your own data. Iceland’s ‘biggest wave yet’ had >2x fewer cases and 4x fewer hospitalizations than the US Delta Wave when adjusted for population. Fewer cases means fewer chances to get infected.
>Can you help me understand why you choose to compare USA vs Iceland (which is fraught with confounding factors)
I didn’t, the parent brought up Iceland. What are the confounding factors?
>Iceland(early) vs Iceland (now)
Ok, at its peak Iceland had 2x the number of new daily cases during its delta wave as its prior wave owing to the increased transmissibility of Delta. Despite this, hospitalizations during their delta wave were 1/3 of the prior wave. Unvaccinated Icelanders were also 2x more likely to be infected during their delta wave. It is undeniable that vaccination reduces hospitalization and infection rate.
>>It is undeniable that vaccination reduces hospitalization and infection rate.
This is completely irrelevant to my argument, yet you continue to repeat this point in an exercise of bad faith sophistry.
My argument is that vaccination does not provide herd immunity, and that thus the virus will continue to propagate until every one has been exposed to COVID, irrespective of the vaccination rate.
The point I'm making is that the argument that being vaccinated protects others is unsubstantiated. If anything, not being vaccinated leads to infection happening sooner, which leads to immunity much stronger than that conferred by vaccination.
Your argument is weak. The only evidence you have provided that vaccination cannot lead to herd immunity is a quote tweet about Iceland which has been discredited. US experts argue vaccination can confer herd immunity. If you disagree present data that supports your case.
The tweet you cite notes that only 18 people are hospitalized in Iceland. Adjusted for population, the US has over 4x as many hospitalizations. This is a huge success and 100% due to the high vaccination rates. Iceland was able to achieve this voluntarily. The US cannot.
That again has nothing to do with my argument, which is about the risk that being unvaccinated poses to others. If you are equally likely to be exposed to COVID if many are unvaccinated as if many are vaccinated, then you can't argue that other people deciding to not get vaccinated puts you at any additional risk.
> If you are equally likely to be exposed to COVID if many are unvaccinated as if many are vaccinated
That’s not true. According to data YOU provided, unvaccinated people are more than 2x more likely to be infected than vaccinated. Less vaccination leads to more infections and more hospitalizations.
But vaccinated people transmit the virus at a sufficiently high rate to prevent herd immunity from being established.
Without herd immunity, the virus will propagate, even if it's at a slower rate, making it inevitable that every one is eventually exposed to the virus.
