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

[Magical Realist]

Hell, your other conclusive studies don't even confirm 90%.

Don't you ever get tired of lying?

"Vaccination with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine reduces infections by 90%, while a single dose confers 80% protection, shows a study led by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that followed essential workers through the worst months of the pandemic.1 The study is one of a small number that employ regular testing to measure vaccines’ impact on infection rates rather than counting cases of symptomatic disease, hospital admission, or death."--- https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n888

"The dark horse vaccine company Novavax announced strong results today from a pivotal, 30,000-person trial of its pandemic coronavirus vaccine in the United States and Mexico. The vaccine uses a protein of SARS-CoV-2, a different technology from the COVID-19 vaccines authorized so far, and delivered 90.4% overall efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 infections, and 100% protection against moderate and severe disease. Against eight viral variants of interest and concern, its efficacy was 93.2%. And the vaccine appeared safe and well-tolerated."--- https://www.science.org/content/article/...lds-supply

[Syne]

Hell, your other conclusive studies don't even confirm 90%.

Don't you ever get tired of lying?

"Vaccination with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine reduces infections by 90%, while a single dose confers 80% protection, shows a study led by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that followed essential workers through the worst months of the pandemic.1 The study is one of a small number that employ regular testing to measure vaccines’ impact on infection rates rather than counting cases of symptomatic disease, hospital admission, or death."--- https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n888

"The dark horse vaccine company Novavax announced strong results today from a pivotal, 30,000-person trial of its pandemic coronavirus vaccine in the United States and Mexico. The vaccine uses a protein of SARS-CoV-2, a different technology from the COVID-19 vaccines authorized so far, and delivered 90.4% overall efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 infections, and 100% protection against moderate and severe disease. Against eight viral variants of interest and concern, its efficacy was 93.2%. And the vaccine appeared safe and well-tolerated."--- https://www.science.org/content/article/...lds-supply

Quit projecting you desperate liar.

That science.org link is the first time you've cited it in this thread. Hence not included in "your other conclusive studies" posted before this. And there's zero data to back up the claim... again, in the middle of the pandemic hysteria.
AND it says "delivered 90.4% overall efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 infections."
I know you can't read for shit, but that's different from protection against infection. Being asymptomatic would mean you could spread it without knowing.

[Magical Realist]

That science.org link is the first time you've cited it in this thread. Hence not included in "your other conclusive studies" posted before this

But the BMJ link I quoted WAS cited earlier. Hence your pathetic lying liar. Crawl back under your rock you anti-vaxxer scum..

[Syne]

Again, learn what replicability is, dumbass.

And learn to read for ONCE. Citing one study is not "confirmation." Suddenly citing a new source, that doesn't replicate the first, is not "confirmation."
"reduces infections by 90%" and "delivered 90.4% overall efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 infections" are two entirely different things. And the latter provided zero evidence for its claim (which read like pharma ad copy).

You're just a hapless dupe.

[Magical Realist]

LOL You're so far off in your semantic la-la land you're not even making sense anymore. Seven cited conclusive studies on the effectiveness of the vaccines aren't "confirmation"? "Reducing infections" not the same as "efficacy against symptomatic COVID infections"? Give it up. Just admit you were totally wrong and that you were lying. People would respect you more here if you did that.

[Syne]

Yeah, yeah, we all know you can't read worth a damn. No need to prove it more, dipshit.

Yes, illiterate one, "reducing infections" is not the same as "reducing symptomatic infections." The latter is still an infection... just without symptoms... exactly as the name implies. Learn to parse simple English (which you seem to think is "semantic la-la land"... where you're the only one here who refuses to accept things like the biological definition of pair-bonding).

Again, your own citations don't distinguish between the efficacy of natural immunity and vaccines, don't confirm the claimed percentage of reduced infections, and all that do claim some reduction in infections are either not longitudinal or admit to their own limitations... all as previously pointed out.

[confused2]

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

This is the rhetorical 'Any port in a storm'. This looks to me like one of Syne's irrelevant 'wins' - there will never be good data on mild and/or asymptomatic infections simply because they won't be reported.
The 'real' issue is that unvaccinated folks were 10 times more likely to die of an infection than those who had been vaxxed.
For example: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/unite...try=~80%2B
Syne may have a point that people who aren't seriously ill may well be more likely to spread infection than folks who are very ill. This was (probably) the justification for social distancing, lockdowns and masks - all of which Syne feels interfered with his rights as a native American.
What I would agree would be a fair criticism is that legislation was used to protect the interests of healthcare providers. In the real world there is considerable overlap between the interests of healthcare providers and people needing care but this doesn't take into account the importance of the bill of rights which protects both freedom and stupidity.

[Magical Realist]

claims of preventing infection are not supported by the science.

This looks to me like one of Syne's irrelevant 'wins'

Really? So those 7 studies I cited all proving the vaccine was very effective in preventing covid infection, 2 of which showed an effective rate of 90%, weren't valid? You did look at those I assume...

[confused2]

Really? So those 7 studies I cited all proving the vaccine was very effective in preventing covid infection, 2 of which showed an effective rate of 90%, weren't valid? You did look at those I assume...

Truth comes from Mar-a-Lago. The more evidence you provide the clearer it becomes that you are deliberately ignoring Truth. America rejected divine guidance (available via Trump) in favour of a 'groupthink' - a plan based on the best available evidence. I don't think you can present a rational argument to irrational people - it just to bounces off them.

[Syne]

Now these two morons are debating a post I made about the flu vaccine (not Covid vaccine) as if it were about Covid.

Learn to read people!