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

[confused2]

"delivered 90.4% overall efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 infections."

I must admit I somehow interpreted that as being a post about COVID-19

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

?

Edit .. I thought the game in Pedants Corner was whether something that prevents (say) 90% of infections can be regarded as 'preventing infections' - no?

[Magical Realist]

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

Syne trying to tap dance his way out of his claim now. Unfortunately we have it on record:

All the actual sources only say that Covid vaccine reduces hospitalizations (you know, severe illness)... not infections.

oopsie daisy! lol

[Syne]

No, you were literally replying to a quote about flu vaccine, dipshit.

Yes, I know you two illiterates have trouble parsing simple English... and you have to take bite size pieces out of context...

Preventing 90% of infections while not being able to distinguish that efficacy from natural immunity isn't saying much. Neither is preventing 90% of infections the same as preventing 90% of symptomatic infections. English really isn't as hard a language as you two make it seem.

[Magical Realist]

Like I said, you denied covid vaccinations don't prevent infections. It's right here liar:

"All the actual sources only say that Covid vaccine reduces hospitalizations (you know, severe illness)... not infections."

The 7 studies I cited all proved you wrong about this. Now you're just trying to distract from that fact.

[confused2]

Let's try some logic on this..
In one area there are ten fires and only one in another area. The fire service are present at every fire so we can assume the fire service are causing the fires. When our own house catches fire we assume the fire will go out by itself because we have established a causal relationship between fires and the fire service.
In reality we know the fire service are called after the fire has started and aren't the cause of the fire.
With covid the groupthinkers running the 'fire service' were attempting to stop 'fires' before they started .. hence the difficulty of establishing cause and effect. In the UK we have an open society so 'hospitals full' was followed by 'lockdown' .. no problem establishing cause and effect. In the US I'm guessing (right?) the availabilty of hospital treatment would be a commercial secret - you wouldn't want folks suing or demanding refunds from the nice people running the insurance companies. Conspiracy theories and nonsense flourish in the absence of 'facts' .. which is what we see in the US.

[Syne]

Like I said, you denied covid vaccinations don't prevent infections. It's right here liar:

"All the actual sources only say that Covid vaccine reduces hospitalizations (you know, severe illness)... not infections."

The 7 studies I cited all proved you wrong about this. Now you're just trying to distract from that fact.

And if you were honest (which we all know you're not), you would have mentioned that you're quoting me BEFORE you posted any studies at all. 9_9

The first four I already addressed here:

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.

Then you and C2 made fools of yourselves by mocking longitudinal studies: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-17755-...l#pid71090 https://www.scivillage.com/thread-17755-...l#pid71097

Your fifth citation said that:

"Moreover, the time-dependent variable was also significant; the hazard ratio for “number of infections” was 0.25. This means that each additional previous infection, in combination with the other variables, reduced the infection risk 75%.
...
The findings of this study suggest that both prior infections with SARS-CoV-2, regardless of the variant, and vaccination play a significant role in providing immunity against SARS-CoV-2."
- https://publichealth.jmir.org/2024/1/e56926

And your seventh that:

"Limitations may include the following: 1) the sample size was too small to draw definitive conclusions on response in the production of IgG antibodies against the S protein after vaccination; 2) our results cannot be extrapolated to the general population due to both age and the increased risk of exposure to the disease; and 3) since it is a new virus, there are many issues that are still unknown and, therefore, there could be other factors influencing the results that have not been analyzed."
- https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/...AUVmJTWV2D

If you think quoting your own citations is "trying to distract," that's your problem.

[Magical Realist]

And if you were honest (which we all know you're not), you would have mentioned that you're quoting me BEFORE you posted any studies at all. 9_9

So do you still stand by your statement or not? It's a simple question..

Here's the statement again that you yourself made:

"All the actual sources only say that Covid vaccine reduces hospitalizations (you know, severe illness)... not infections."

Second question: Are you now denying that the 7 studies I cited (which are actual sources) say that Covid vaccines reduce infections? Or are you going to lie again?

[Syne]

As already stated, twice, those studies make different claims about stopping infection (not actual replication), and with the quoted limitations and not distinguishing vaccine efficacy from natural immunity.

[Magical Realist]

LOL You can't even honestly answer my questions. You're such a liar.

[Syne]

No, you just don't comprehend your own citations, dipshit.