Lying by Omission about Break-Thru Covid-19 Infections?

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. You're assuming that 100% people will get infected in the absence of a vaccine.

You give no indication of how long that would take - but we know we got nowhere near it before the vaccines were developed. So it takes an awfully long time. And it means you have to assume things about the future from what we've seen in the past - ironically, what you accuse the OP report of. By "erring of the side of safety", you are not producing good information about what has happened, or what is happening now - you're painting a worst case scenario.

We can say, which may help, that 1 in 65 people in England tested at random for the virus (which is basically only the Delta variant at this point) were positive last week - whether symptomatic or asymptomatic: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/30july2021

"The positivity rate is the percentage of people who have tested positive for COVID-19 at a point in time. We use current COVID-19 infections to mean testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, with or without having symptoms, on a swab taken from the nose and throat. This is different to the incidence rate, which is a measure of only the new polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive cases in a given time period."

That's in a country where there had been widespread Delta variant infection (substantially more than the US average, so far), but the rate of new infections is now coming down in the past couple of weeks (which is not due to a sudden increase in vaccination - that's only been going up slowly, recently) - nearly halved - see https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus . That 1 in 65 is higher than previous weeks, but looks to be near the peak. So even in a substantial outbreak of Delta, with 50-55% of the total population, or about 70% of the adult population, vaccinated, you don't end up with anything close to 100% of the unvaccinated infected.