Clearly, you will never be appointed to the current administration’s cabinet.
Yes. You definitely will never get such an appointment.
Maybe this one works…
The study outcome was time to COVID-19, the latter defined as a positive NAAT result for SARS-CoV-2 any time after the study start date. Outcomes were followed up until 14 March 2023, allowing for evaluation of outcomes up to 26 weeks from the study start date.
See the problem?
Is there a reason you chose that one single study as opposed to, say, this larger and more recent one that focused on mortality, rather than on infection rates?
Estimated number of lives directly saved by COVID-19 vaccination programmes in the WHO European Region from December, 2020, to March, 2023: a retrospective surveillance study - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
(LOL, just joking. Everyone knows why you cherry picked one study out of every other one.)
2 Likes
This is the most basic fact about the vaccine. To be ignorant of this fact is to be utterly unqualified to type anything on a discussion forum meant for the discussion of science.
Gill, your ignorance is so spectacular that you should sign off and read tiny, basic scientific facts of the kind we expect high schoolers to undrestand.
1 Like
For @Giltil’s education:
How COVID-19 vaccines protect you
The COVID-19 vaccine stimulates your body’s immune system to make antibodies and fight the virus.
The vaccines help prevent you from:
- getting infected
- having COVID-19 symptoms
- severe illness.
This means you could have COVID-19 with no symptoms or will have fewer, milder symptoms and recover faster.
Being up to date with your immunisations means that you might still get infected with COVID-19. But it significantly reduces your chances of becoming seriously ill or ending up in hospital.
That’s adorable. In what world, pray tell, were political decisions ever in any way whatsoever rooted in science?
Politics is not a game of truth, it is a game of wealth and power; a game of thrones, if you will. Decisions are not made not in accord with what the evidence suggests is the case about human health. They are made in accord with what the evidence suggests is the case about political and financial support. What ever gets the decision makers the sweetest balance of voter devotion and lobbyist investment, that is what they’ll try and implement. Whether or how much these align with what’s best for the people or true about nature may at times be question of popular scientific literacy, which, unfortunately, is severely affected by decisions regarding the education system – hence this unenviable position the English-speaking West in general and the United States in particular is finding itself in lately. This idea, that government choices are all in their own right an indicator as to what is factual with regard to scientific questions is dangerously naive, and the idea that banning or destroying research is a way to improve anyone’s understanding of anything is outright absurd.
1 Like
Let’s try to fix things. I agree that my question was misleading and that the Covid mRNA vaccines are currently not supposed to reduce risk of infection anymore. But do you agree that they were initially supposed to reduce risk of symptomatic infection ?
Charles Peguy, a French intellectual, poet and writer, famously said “Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics.” I think the MAHA mouvement started and is still mostly at the stage of mysticism but I have nearly no doubt that if successful, it will inexorably devolve into politics.
That’s not you fixing things, that’s you trying to weasel out of your mistake and making more mistakes in the process.
Ahh but you see, Gilberts favored politicians are the honest ones, and all others are not.
So the Queensland government is nefariously trying to hide inconvenient results, whereas RFK Jr is acting out of brave concern for americans.
They did. Initially, people not previously vaccinated (or infected) strongly benefited from it, and it did offer protection against infection and illness symptoms for a time.
The value of recurring boosters might raise legitimate questions (particularly if recipients were boosted against outdated variants), but there was a massive difference for people who never before had been exposed to the relevant antigens. It saved millions of lives.