Article A case study in groupthink: were liberals wrong about the pandemic?

[Syne]

The only one there that wasn't during the pandemic hysteria (and self-censorship) is: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/what-t...or-2024-25

"Broadly speaking, the COVID vaccine provides strong protection against infection for up to three months and protection against severe disease out to six months. That said, there are a lot of variables that can affect duration and strength of protection, including any new variants that may emerge and how different they are from the vaccine formulation."

IOW, they can't really tell you how effective it is at protecting against infection. The context you omitted matters, moron.

---

In related current news:
This year's flu shot linked to higher flu risk in adults: Cleveland Clinic study

A recent study conducted by the Cleveland Clinic has revealed that this year's flu shot was not effective in preventing influenza among working-aged adults.
The study, which was published on Medrxiv.org, analyzed data from the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season.
According to the findings, "influenza vaccination of working-aged adults was associated with a higher risk of influenza," indicating that the vaccine did not provide the expected protection this season.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/...infection/

Although the study shows vaccinated participants had an increased risk of getting the flu, it did not measure the vaccine’s primary benefit — how it reduces risk for severe illness, hospitalization and death.

Like I said, reduces severity and hospitalizations, but claims of preventing infection are not supported by the science.

[TheVat]

While I agree with much of what Macedo and Lee conclude, and certainly issues swirling around covid became politicized at the expense of good science, I wasn't sure about their figures on the parity of mortality rates in red and blue states.  Since blue states tend towards more clusters of high population density, and such urban concentrations of population correlate with easier transmission, shouldn't one have expected somewhat higher rates in blue states?  The fact that they were not higher could indicate that some public health measures were useful.  

That said, I agree that we need to look at Sweden harder to understand how their policies worked so well for them.

(and hello to CC, MR, and other familiar faces)

(could not get quote function to work for selected paragraphs in the OP - hope I can figure this out)

[C C]

[...] (and hello to CC, MR, and other familiar faces) [...]

Welcome to Stryder's wild, wild west forum, TV.

[...] (could not get quote function to work for selected paragraphs in the OP - hope I can figure this out) [...]

Wegs (known as "Leigha" here) mentioned having occasional problems with reply quotes on mobile devices a few years ago (though I could have that confused memory-wise with a different difficulty). One of the first things I did upon arriving was go to the User Control Panel, under Edit Options and then Other Options, and put the editor in source mode by default. But consequently that probably blinds me to some of the issues that others may be encountering, in terms of how things are normally rendered in Reply.

While I agree with much of what Macedo and Lee conclude, and certainly issues swirling around covid became politicized at the expense of good science, I wasn't sure about their figures on the parity of mortality rates in red and blue states.  Since blue states tend towards more clusters of high population density, and such urban concentrations of population correlate with easier transmission, shouldn't one have expected somewhat higher rates in blue states?  The fact that they were not higher could indicate that some public health measures were useful.  

That said, I agree that we need to look at Sweden harder to understand how their policies worked so well for them.

Yah, vaguely akin to underdetermination and overdetermination, it may be challenging at times to ferret out non-reflex reasons for _X_ when it comes to social-realm information. Authors inspecting the data sources may not apply any interpretation at all, or if they do, it could be their own personal assumptions or preferences at work underneath.

[Magical Realist]

((Welcome The Vat))...Speak your mind freely here! No one will moderate you or try to ban you.

[Magical Realist]

IOW, they can't really tell you how effective it is at protecting against infection. The context you omitted matters, moron.

All 4 totally reputable sources state plainly that the vaccine is effective in preventing infection which you claimed it wasn't. The last even gives a percentage rate of effectiveness of 90%. Your asinine claim has been totally refuted.

[Syne]

You do realize that scientific data becomes better the more time elapses and the more data points you accumulate, right?
Hence why I don't take studies done mid-pandemic as gospel.
If that's your whole argument, meh.

[Magical Realist]

You do realize that scientific data becomes better the more time elapses and the more data points you accumulate, right?

No...I've never heard the "theory" that scientific studies become more unreliable with the passage of time. Do you have any evidence supporting this or are you just pulling it out your ass?

[Syne]

"and more data points"
You have a serious problem with selectively omitting critical context.

Sure sign of bias hard at work.

[Magical Realist]

So you have no evidence for that. That's what I thought liar..You're done here.

[Syne]

Like I said, you're scientifically illiterate. All science is always continuing to make progress over time. This is so obviously true that you have to be a complete moron or enormously biased if you can't admit that simple fact. My money is on the former. Otherwise, you'd realize the absolute fool you're making of yourself in a vain attempt to win an internet argument. 9_9

In this case, you ever hear the term "longitudinal studies?" It's clear you haven't. A longitudinal study is "a research design that involves repeated observations of the same variables (e.g., people) over long periods of time (i.e., uses longitudinal data)."

"Repeated observations," e.g. more data points "over long periods of time," e.g. more time elapses. Exactly what I just said and you are idiotically trying to argue.

That makes you demonstrable scientifically illiterate. Now you're clearly done here... as you've just nuked your credibility on the entire subject. Way to dig your own hole, dipshit.