Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Fair enough, then the answer to what I asked is "Nothing has been determined yet"

It does work both ways. I have explained it to you and as you were unable to accept/argue my explanation you responded with "You're just being a total shitebag"

The only difference when I say I have explained it to you I am prepared to repost the explanation in case you would like to respond intelligently:

I changed my username, I did not reregister a new account. All my posting history from the old username is available to see under this username. I changed my username for reasons totally unrelated to my posting history on this forum. The reason I didn't just register a new account when I wanted a new user name was precisely because I wanted to keep my posting history.

We've covered before why I don't feel the need to comment on every last piece of misinformation I see here, and I see plenty. And I have answered your questions on specific claims - you asked me did I think the warnings on the Pfizer annual reports were evidence that they were telling investors something different to the public or something along those lines. I told you I agree with you and I didn't believe it was anything sinister.

None of my buddies as you put it comment much on my posts, yet that doesn't seem to worry you so much.

You often reply to my posts, totally ignoring whatever I posted and instead asking me to comment on something I have no interest in. And then if I don't comment on the other thing, you insinuate that this somehow is evidence that what I am posting, which you ignored, is untrue.

It's very odd behaviour, and you'd be banned for it in most other forums.

DohnJoe and others have already mentioned my previous username, there is nothing to hide.

Fine, as you say those many people who lurk are likely to form their own opinions as what is correct.

Thats largely why I challenge the deflection and misinformation here about the vaccines effect on severe covid.

not for the benefit of you and the other regulars in here, but for the benefit of those who might not be familiar with your techniques.

Instead you use a different approach. Your spiel is to find particular studies, etc that you "don't get", then keep baiting others into providing explanations that you will never accept. As evidenced and demonstrated by your hundreds of posts here

This is your go to argument. It is been explained to me. And I refuse to understand the perfectly rational explanations that are offered.

Let me remind you what the bulk of my posts have concerned. It's not a study that I don't get.

It's a simple statement that I am claiming as a fact: the trial data on severe Covid was insufficient to make reliable conclusions on the VE against severe covid.

I have asked you numerous times the simple question whether or not you think I am wrong on this point.

You refuse to answer that instead telling me to accept explanations that are ridiculous. We've had two of most crazy today alone - FightingTao's extremely reliable but not yet determined and astrofools meta-analysis.

Do you think those are valid explanations disproving the statement the trial data on severe Covid was insufficient to make reliable conclusions on the VE against severe covid?