Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

The comment you have built yourself upon was incorrect, the data posted shows the effect from the trials along with the confidence intervals you misunderstood, you have already conceded on the massive trials, you need to find something else now to combat the comprehensive data (and it's still hilarious that you've reduced yourself to a comment I made many pages ago and that you have been proven comprehensively wrong with, not that you would admit it, did you give up on Dohnjoe?).

Did you post the wrong data because you are dumb or because you are disingenuous?

You missed the title of the data table posted, which leads me to believe you are disingenuous:

The data you posted to bolster your argument are not figures specifically for severe Covid, it is for "First COVID-19 occurrence from 7 days after Dose 2, without prior SARSCOV-2, overall"

And when you say I miss understood the Confidence intervals:

And just to show the data table (95% CI would mean there's a 1/20 chance that if the trial was repeated it wouldn't show substantially different numbers, with a 95% chance of those numbers varying between 90.0 and 97.9), again, this CI was included in the day 1 data for all vaccines, which is what the real world data later improved upon)

did you actually get your confidence intervals mixed up?

The reports says: The estimated efficacy against severe COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after dose 2 was 66.4%, with a large and negative lower bound CI (95% CI: -124.8%; 96.3%)

So lets have another look at your explanation of how you believe the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials (my comments in bold):

the data posted shows the effect from the trials (you cited the wrong data) along with the confidence intervals you misunderstood (you cited the wrong confidence intervals), you have already conceded on the massive trials (massive trials yes for symptomatic Covid, nowhere near big enough for severe, that's the point), you need to find something else now to combat the comprehensive data (really?!! LOL)

Ok if you really need something else, I'll just stick with the approvers' opinion that: Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn from 7 days after the second dose (secondary endpoint).

Still haven't heard any explanation of why you think you know better than they do.

Not very well it would appear.

Ok, on we go.

I quoted verbatim. The majority of the rest of the section you quoted was irrelevant to your claim about the proven and extrmeley comprehensive data on severity as it concerned limited data about other things eg transmission. And as much as you insinuate I got "other things wrong", without actually stating what these are, I can't counter that

- the table you posted actually related to section 3.2 Favourable Effects - The overall vaccine efficacy against symptomatic laboratory confirmed COVID-19 from 7 days after dose 2 was 95.0% (95% CI 90.0, 97.9) in subjects ≥16 years of age without prior evidence of SARSCoV2 infection and 94.6% (95% CI 89.6, 97.6) in all subjects regardless of prior evidence of SARSCoV-2 infection (primary endpoint). This outcome met the pre-specified success criteria. 

The section you quoted to back up your claim on the extremely comprehensive data was 3.3. Uncertainties and limitations about favourable effects - the clue of just how wrong you are about this extremely comprehensive data being proven is in the title - Uncertainties and limitations

And as ever, as much as you insinuate I am "claiming random other things", without actually stating what these are, I can't counter that

Either you're trolling or a total hypocrite. Either way this does not bring us any closer to understanding how you have managed to interpret what the approvers considered to be no reliable conclusion based available limited data, as totally proven from extremely comprehensive data.

The estimated efficacy was 66.4% with a with a large and negative lower bound CI (95% CI: -124.8%; 96.3%) - this is about as far from proven with extremely comprehensive data as it is possible to be. Exactly why the approvers said: Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn.

Once again are you are unwilling and unable to answer what you understand about the data and confidence intervals that makes you think the approvers were wrong?

You haven't proven any thing. All you done is repeated more of the same waffle, and totally ignored the fact that you cited the wrong data and the wrong confidence intervals. Yet you double down on this.

More total garbage and either ignorant or disingenuous bullshit. From your previous post on the confidence intervals you claim I misunderstood:

How on earth can you state with any credibility that this proves your claim? - the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials that were then repeated with real world data.

🤣

Out of interest, is there anybody else in this thread who disagrees with the approvers statement:

and instead thinks that @astrofool 's statement is accurate:

Has anybody been persuaded by his arguments? His peerless grasp of data? Is there anybody who has read astrofools posts and thought, "By gosh, astrofool is on to something, why did the regulators think there was only limited data on severity with no reliable conclusion, the efficacy on severity is clearly proven by extremely comprehensive data."

Will anybody speak up to defend astrofool's opinion he knows better than the regulators?