>(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.