When you were talking about "80%", I thought you were referring to reduction in transmission. The article you linked only talks about the reduction in numbers of cases (and mostly symtomatic cases), which is not the same thing. By "reduction in transmission", we are talking about the chances of someone catching Covid from someone already infected with it.
>Your original statement, and some of your followup statements, argued against the vaccine reducing spread at all.
Not that it matters much, but I started by saying that it does not confer sterilising immunity (something even the article you linked suggests could be true), later correcting it "it's not know if it does". I've also said, many times now, that it may have some limited effect on reducing transmission.
I'm still not sure why the obsession with transmissison, anyway.
If it reduces the chance you have an asymptomatic case by 80%, and reduces the chance you have a symptomatic case by even more, then almost certainly the reduction in transmission is at least 80%, isn't it?
> but I started by saying that it does not confer sterilising immunity
But you were replying to a comment about reducing transmission. And when I kept talking about reducing transmission you said "limited" sometimes and acted like it was none other times.
80% would be more than enough...
> I'm still not sure why the obsession with transmissison, anyway.
Because stopping people from getting sick is much better than reducing how sick they get. And transmission is the only factor that actually stops the virus.
>Your original statement, and some of your followup statements, argued against the vaccine reducing spread at all.
Not that it matters much, but I started by saying that it does not confer sterilising immunity (something even the article you linked suggests could be true), later correcting it "it's not know if it does". I've also said, many times now, that it may have some limited effect on reducing transmission.
I'm still not sure why the obsession with transmissison, anyway.