Where am I wrong in this?
You've been told. It doesn't take. I have nothing to offer but to repeat the same information and apply the same arguments to it to arrive at the same conclusions, that you have already ignored. I am not trying to teach you anything, because teaching is a cooperative effort, one that requires the would-be learner to bring a certain state of mind to the process and certain critical thinking skills. The teacher needs a student who is willing and able to consider an argument dispassionately, determine if its conclusions are sound, and be willing to be convinced by a compelling argument. We don't have that here. We have somebody asking questions with no interest in the answers, and who is unwilling to see or say that she is wrong if she is.
Address the information not me. The info is the same since it's from CDC not my opinion.
You said earlier to consider the argument only, not the source. You say something similar here - address the information, not you.
But you provide an excellent example of why one must consider the source. To consider only the argument, one must have confidence that the source is sincere and has an interest in truth. The author must share ones values about the ethics of argumentation, must be considered qualified to discuss the subject, and must be seen as having no hidden agenda.
Look at how you've cherry picked ideas from the CDC page you linked us to, ignoring whatever contradicted your purpose. You left these out:
- Unvaccinated people remain the greatest concern: The greatest risk of transmission is among unvaccinated people who are much more likely to get infected, and therefore transmit the virus. Fully vaccinated people get COVID-19 (known as breakthrough infections) less often than unvaccinated people. People infected with the Delta variant, including fully vaccinated people with symptomatic breakthrough infections, can transmit the virus to others. CDC is continuing to assess data on whether fully vaccinated people with asymptomatic breakthrough infections can transmit the virus.
- Fully vaccinated people with Delta variant breakthrough infections can spread the virus to others. However, vaccinated people appear to spread the virus for a shorter time: For prior variants, lower amounts of viral genetic material were found in samples taken from fully vaccinated people who had breakthrough infections than from unvaccinated people with COVID-19. For people infected with the Delta variant, similar amounts of viral genetic material have been found among both unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people. However, like prior variants, the amount of viral genetic material may go down faster in fully vaccinated people when compared to unvaccinated people. This means fully vaccinated people will likely spread the virus for less time than unvaccinated people.
Isn't this what I just told you in a previous post - that the unvaccinated are more likely to get and spread the virus, and until delta, were also more likely to transmit it while infected?
You seem to be saying that there is no reason to get vaccinated since the vaccinated get and transmit COVID just like the unvaccinated. But you have been shown by me (and no doubt others) that there is a difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated in terms of keeping this pandemic alive. The unvaccinated are much more a problem notwithstanding that the vaccinated can acquire and transmit COVID. That's an inconvenient truth for you, and why you continually try to redirect to a small set of facts you want considered in isolation of the totality of available facts. So, you ignore it when I tell you, and you ignore it in the CDC piece you cited.
That's why one doesn't look only at what you want them to see. I am much more likely to simply read the argument of somebody who shares my values on the ethics and proper methods of argumentation. If I know that about somebody, I don't have to wonder what confirmation bias they filtered the elements of their argument through, or if they will deliberately use specious argumentation, or whether they are more interested in convincing or persuading. Because without that, although one cannot say that the argument is wrong based on its source, the so called genetic fallacy, one can say that one doesn't trust the source enough to consider the argument without the relevant context being excluded, nor to trust that the claims of fact are correct (some people don't need to be fact-checked to the degree that some others do).
I don't consider you a deliberate liar, just wrong. And as I said, I don't think that I can help you at all without your cooperation, which isn't coming. So why write to you? Well, I write to the whole thread and to anybody who does share my values and who might learn from information that tells a different story than you do. I want to correct the misinformation you are disseminating in defense of your choice to not take a vaccine. You don't want it to be an irresponsible choice that harms others, so you remove the parts that show that the unvaccinated are a greater problem that the vaccinated in keeping the pandemic hot, leaving the parts that seem to show what both do - acquire COVID and transmit it. That's it from you. And you want no more than that considered.
So, as I said, I don't consider you a bad person, but I know that I can't trust your arguments to be thorough and sound. I would have to fact check any claim you made and also learn about the area you are discussing by looking at what's out there that you might be leaving out. I want to emphasize that although I know you are wrong, it's not from your argument, but because of a knowledge of relevant data that you were overlooking.
I first became familiar with this when a younger, open-minded poster brought an article to a thread written by a creationist apologist arguing against the possibility that man evolved from the apes that the other extant apes evolved from, since they all have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and man only 23 pairs. The argument was that the dropout of a chromosome in an offspring would be lethal (selected against), and not lead to a new branch of ape. If you don't know about human chromosome 2, the argument is a good one. If you consider only what the author wants you to see, you must conclude that his logic is valid and therefore the conclusion correct.
But once you become familiar with the ethics of apologetics, you understand that the author is not to be trusted, and reject anything from such a source out of hand. I find no value in the words of such people, ever, which is not surprising given their purpose, which is not that of educating, but of presenting specious, tendentious argumentation intended to persuade.
And whether you can see it or not, this is what you are doing as well. You're not choosing a conclusion from the evidence. Your choosing the evidence according to your "conclusion" (it's not really a conclusion if you started with it. It's premise being presented as a conclusion - see, the facts I want you see lead to my, um, "conclusion."
I wish that I could get through to you, but I know that I cannot. All I can do is try to understand what you are doing. In that sense, even though I can't help you, you help me.
I think that you were overlooking one large statistic.
That's by design. It's not a coincidence that she culled the comments that she thinks she can use to support her contention that it's all the same, vaccinated and unvaccinated, because they can both end up acquiring and disseminating the infection. She was very clear that you were to look at what she wrote and find a fault with it if you can. It's analogous to saying that drunk driving and sober driving are the same because they can both result in fatalities. If that's all there is to say, then yes, they are the same, but it's not all there is to say, and they are very different.
To make that argument, one does the same - find and list what the two have in common while ignoring the more significant differences such as the statistics you mention.
For those unfamiliar, this is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: " an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are overemphasized." I've seen it most frequently in creationist apologetics, where the creationist pulls out whatever commonalities he can find between the Genesis creation story and the scientific account to imply that the Bible got it right long before science, ignoring the huge differences. Never mind all of the errors in the Genesis account, or its glaring omissions. It completely overlooked the singularity, the expansion of the universe, the inflationary epoch, symmetry breaking, particle condensation, nucleosynthsis, the decoupling of matter and radiation, the hundreds of millions of years before starlight, the 9 billion year delay before the formation of the sun and earth, the moon creating impact event, the cooling of the earth with crust formation, and the evolution of life. Never mind all that. Both accounts predict that the universe had a beginning, therefore the Bible authors were prescient in a way that only the existence of an inspiring god could explain.
This is that as well.
technically, if you look at it like Faux Noose does 
, then both vaxxed AND unvaxxed can “spread” the disease. Or rather, both have the capacity to infect others, would be a better way to phrase it. Because if the disease has an R0 value of 0.05 (1 in 200 downwind get infected), then the virus will die out long before it can become worrisome to the population. (Hint: with an R0 value below 1.0, a disease won’t spread).
