Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

The data irrefutably showed impact on severity, you posted the data yourself, there was no right minded person looking at those results that would think impact on severity was unproven, any scientist or medical professional claiming so with such clear data between the groups in some of the largest trials in medical history would be laughed at and no one would take them seriously ever again.

As has also happened here.

Your argument was built on sand. But as said, I don't think anyone expected you to concede even when proving yourself wrong in meticulous detail, but it has completely outed you as an extremist anti-vaxxer and thus future posts will be seen in this light, it means you can skip the JAQ'ing phase in the future.

I've asked this before - should we just relabel this thread as anti-vaxx and go back to the old days? 328 pages, still nothing wrt vaccine safety that holds up to the least amount of scrutiny. It's just an attempt at an anti-vaxx echo chamber. And the anti-vaxxer's goal really seems to get banned, no more, no less. Probably off sharing a good old fashioned glass of whine about it right now.

Amazing how you go from being puzzled to throwing out quotes (and everyone now knows how easy itbis to spot this, allowing you to calculate CFR yourseld, even if you can manage CI yet), it's a fairly snivelling existence along with the obvious pedantry.

However, as said, the impact was proven, the data showed it clearly (hence you being wrong with the lucky scenario, you can admit it now), the magnitude was still TBD but was already in the high ranges of efficacy as proven in the data that you posted for everyone to see, what was the Moderna efficacy range again? Dare to repeat it for everyone to see?

Unfortunately, as much as you might try, you can't be a pedant with the data you posted yourself being irrefutably proven wrong.

I love when people post articles they haven't read. Happens a lot with the conspiraloons.

They literally say limited precision (which I have said as well, numerous times) but none of them say that efficacy severity wasn't proven.

And the data that you posted has it proven irrefutably.

It's madness that you can't see that. Even with all the pedantry, you posted in excruciatingly painful detail, in multiple steps to stop you spinning out, all the data that proves your position is completely wrong.

And your response is more pedantry and spinning.

Which is exactly what I predicted you would do (after numerous other times pointing you at data to find to prove your latest musing wrong). You've become a puppet on strings shouting at the puppeteer.

But, as I said, the whole point of the exercise was to show everyone that you would post irrefutable evidence and then out you as an extreme anti-vaxxer for trying to spin away from the evidence that you yourself posted. So now everyone knows you are an extreme anti-vaxxer and answer your posts, pedanticness and outright lies accordingly. Any future JAQ'ing will be answered with you doing the work to prove it yourself (wrong no doubt).

And you could have saved yourself all of it by saying it was just your opinion.

100% (95% CI 87.0%, NE) is proven to work.

The mod also picked up the satire as intended, but thanks for proving yourself wrong again.

This literally means more data needed to get an accurate number but that the protective effect is in place, i.e. proven (hence the approvals and everybody being happy with the efficacy of the vaccines as proven from the massive trials).

@Big Bag of Chips , hometruths has been playing the "I'm puzzled" game for a long time, see the exchange with Odyssey a few days back or their expectation that other posters disprove a negative, I would expect future posts to be called out accordingly (even if they don't understand satire).

Hold on a second here. For starters, it was a report you introduced to support your claim you were better off not getting vaccinated.

I pointed out nowhere does the report state anything to support that conclusion. Its conclusion is support for boosters.

To your specific claim that I only talked about figures from Day 181 onwards. This is false.

In post #9594 I directly quoted a line from the report which directly contradicted your original claim and your new false new claim in post 9836.

Protection against severe COVID-19 was better maintained for up to 9 months of follow-up, although some waning became evident after more than 4 months. 

I repeatedly pointed out that you were ignoring the complexities in the report, of types of vaccines (mRNA versus AZ), how healthcare workers could have distorted some of the findings and the difference between protection against infection & severe covid.

You offered no comeback to the points raised in this post. Again note that I mention 9 months.