>I don't need to prove that wrong because it doesn't answer the question at all. so you fail your own test.
No Scott. You gave me a fact that doesn't answer the question. I'm not disputing the fact that you provided. I'm disputing that the fact has any explanatory power to the question.
People who are vaccinated have lower viral loads. I accept this, you are 100% correct. Why would I argue against this?
>you just don't like answers that are factual No, I don't like answers that don't answer the question.
"How do bicycles stay upright Scott?" "Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s" "Scott that doesn't answer the question???" "You just don't like factual answers."
>as you want to continue your absurd beliefs. My absurd belief that someone who has minimal symptoms can still spread the virus? Oh yes not at all supported by clinical evidence.
If the vaccinated are more likely to have low or asymptomatic cases How does this translate to less risk to vulnerable populations?
Let's do this in stages. Just put a yes/ no next to each statement.
1) People who are vaccinated have a lower viral load. 2) People who are infected that have a lower viral load more more likely to have an asymptomatic or infection 3) Vulnerable populations are at risk if exposed to the virus and we should do everything to keep the virus away from them 4) If a person doesn't have symptoms they will not know they are infected 5) If a person is unaware of their infection they may unknowingly expose someone to the virus
