EX President Trump received a COVID vaccine. Look how well he has done. OK, Maybe not the best example. Could the vaccine do neurological damage…..?
And yet, after gathering all that evidence, you're unsure that the vaccines work, which suggests that whatever evidence you're gathering, it's of very poor quality. For example, you say things like this: "For some time now, I have been wondering if the vaccines really work. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Perhaps the reduction in deaths is simply a seasonal variation, as you would expect for a respiratory virus, same as flu deaths vary dramatically according to the season." Since vaccine efficacy is measured by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated people at the same time, that statement reflects a total lack of understanding of how vaccines are tested.
I've been working in a virology lab, analyzing data about SARS-CoV-2 and publishing papers on it, and I've been attending regular meetings with state and local departments of health, infectious disease researchers, and doctors. You've been reading anti-vax sites on the internet.
Lots of people -- most people -- make a full recovery fairly quickly. Quite a few don't. And it's clearly a result of covid-19, since people during the same time period under the same kind of mental stress who have gotten other respiratory infections don't have lingering symptoms at anywhere near the same rate.
Covid-19 is a serious enough disease for many; there's no reason to exaggerate like you are doing here.
Case numbers are fairly meaningless. A case could be someone who has a dry cough for a few days, or someone who has no symptoms at all, but tested positive. What matters most is how many people are dying, and the article I posted indicates that the vaccine trials can't tell us if the vaccines are any use in that respect.
0/10 for totally failing to address the article I posted.
Really you seem to have problems grasping numbers in general. As sfs pointed out, you claim to have been studying Covid-19 for 128 months, but don't have any understanding of the vaccine(s) efficacy at all. I'd suggest you take up another hobby, one you can actually do. Crocheting, maybe?
"Adjusted estimates of vaccine effectiveness at 7 days or longer after the second dose were 95·3% ... against SARS-CoV-2 infection, 91·5% ... against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, 97·0% ... against symptomatic COVID-19, 97·2% ... against COVID-19-related hospitalisation, 97·5% ... against severe or critical COVID-19-related hospitalisation, and 96·7% ... against COVID-19-related death." That's for the Pfizer vaccine in Israel, from here
Didn't you look at the author list for that paper?
Didn't you look at the data? I thought you were collecting evidence?
No, they work for the government agency responsible for improving public health. They are only responsible for encouraging people to receive vaccinations if the vaccines work. This bizarre idea you have that governments all over the world are conspiring to lie to make vaccines look good is delusional.
Yes, I do. And I apply a critical, sceptical eye, as all good scientists should.
The government vaccine pushers are responsible for assessing vaccine effectiveness. It's one of those fox-in-charge-of-hen-house situations.
I'm sorry to say that doesn't look like a robust piece of research. We know that the proportion of people who are hospitalised or die of covid is very small. From that point of view, the sample size to get statistically valid results needs to be very, very large. And although 91,000 might sound like a lot of trial participants, for the purposes of evaluating a covid vaccine's effectiveness at preventing death, it probably isn't sufficient.
