- Vaccinated people (presumably) shed lower viral loads. Just that both can spread them does not mean that there's no difference in transmission rates.

- Unvaccinated people are at greater risk of complications from catching COVID, so limiting the avenues for transmission to them helps curb fatality rates and hospital occupancy.

- And, undoubtedly, it's also an incentive for individuals to get vaccinated. Again, with the goal to reduce the overall number of hospitalizations and deaths.

>(presumably)

They've studied this and shown it to be untrue.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-sim...

> Unvaccinated people are at greater risk of complications from catching COVID, so limiting the avenues for transmission to them helps curb fatality rates and hospital occupancy.

I’m tired of this argument. Unless one has a medical condition preventing them from being vaccinated, who cares? We somehow got in a state where we protect unvaccinated minority who doesn’t care about how inconvenient they make the lives of everyone else.

One way of convincing people to vaccinate may be to make the ecmo treatment non-coverable under medical insurance for unvaccinated with no confirmed condition preventing vaccination and let’s move on with our lives. What’s the plan otherwise? Another 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?

> Unless one has a medical condition preventing them from being vaccinated, who cares? We somehow got in a state where we protect unvaccinated minority who doesn’t care about how inconvenient they make the lives of everyone else.

This wouldn't be such a big problem if the unvaccinated weren't overwhelming the hospitals and ICUs, which affects everybody in case of emergencies or even planned surgeries.

That’s my point. Perhaps they would vaccinate if they knew it will cost €€€€€ when they end up in treatment.

For a 12 year old boy who is as likely to be hospitalized with jab-induced myocarditis as they are to be hospitalized with covid, both options cost $$

There is basically no difference in transmission rates. Look at the study linked in the RKI FAQ (eyre et Al I believe). It is a clear-cut contact tracing study.

You were infected? -> who were you in close contact with? -> did they get infected?

Result? Negligible impact, rapidly declining. Reducing your contacts by 30% has a much greater impact on spread than vaccination does.

that's what I said. The only real solution would be: Everything open to every one, the only condition should be a negative test, valid for 24 hours. Like it is today, the vaccinated still carrying virus around and the unvaccinated do home party with other people and no tests are involved. The only benefit from the vaccine is that it reduces the changes to go ICU. The RKI institute in Germany says that 94% of people on ICU are unvaccinated.. P=0.94 is a strong correlation.

https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/corona-studie-impfdu...

I agree with you on everything, except 94% is out of date. 35% of ICU patients are now vaccinated, 46% in the 60+ age group. And the percentage keeps rising, especially in the most vulnerable group > 60.

Check out their weekly reports, the relevant tables are usually around page 21 or 22. In the most recent one, it's on page 24.

https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus...

The numbers aren't my opinion. I just read what ZDF wrote.

The Ms. Wagenknecht said something similar with the numbers presented by you: From 3000 people on the ICU, 2/3 were unvaccinated. A pretty high number of Vaccinated.

Reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS5-qOCSZhQ

And what the ZDF wrote is from August and thus completely out of date. GP is completely correct.

Not to mention that at this time the RKI was still counting reported hospitalizations into the "unvaccinated" category if there was no vaccination status known.

Currently that figure is at around 60% of all reported hospitalizations and can be checked by everyone, since the raw data is public.