I’m literally asking him what his source was.
Please note that I said ‘in the abstract’
The paper does not make a compelling case whatsoever that this is related to fading vaccine response, and they found a relationship to the month of the year, not to time after the vaccine.
The paper also failed to do basic things like ‘make sure your control group doesn’t disproportionately have covid’, which makes it useless. Hope that helps you.
Oh and churchill, this paper is all over the antivaxx twitterverse now so I’m really wondering how you just happened to stumble upon it.
And to really smash home this point, this is from the paper. The unvaccinated group had 4x the amount of ‘last PCR test positive’ and I’m guessing the overall infection rate is even higher.
This is super important. At the end of their study, about 55% of the unvaccinated group was positive. That makes at least 65-70% of their sample positive in the unvaccinated side depending on their re-infection rate. That means about 80% of the unvaccinated, not previously infected group got covid. Roughly 65/82 or so, it would vary depending on rate of re-infection, so I’m estimating.
Meanwhile, 18% and 24% positive came back in the Pfizer group. Means that there was around some range of 4.5-2.5 to 1 risk here by my quick estimates, putting efficacy around 70-82%, which is in line with previous work.
Note that you can’t actually do what I do here, this is a quick and dirty look to get a rough idea. The point here is that not controlling for this is asinine.
1 Like
Hey @churchill I found out what YouTube you got this from. Y’all would be shocked as to why he wasn’t forthcoming with his source.
That screenshot looked really weird so I did some digging on this paper, and the video is here. The timestamp he took this screen shot from is at 8m09s. Could it be some other video? I don’t think so. Churchill is a sucker for any brit.
Look at his screenshot though, it’s a little weird right? It’s not a clear graphic on a screen. That’s because this guy holds up a paper to the camera, likely because this dumbass boomer is too dumb to do it electronically. This is the same video.
This guy is a truly reprehensible piece of shit @churchill, and you should be embarrassed that you’re getting any information from him. How you sat through the guy crying about getting his booster is beyond me.
You should check out John Campbell’s other videos, which are full of covid and vaccine misinformation. It’s a really great insight into you Churchill’s thoughts.
My favorite video is this one:
Where he shits on the BBC (used to be really good) and defends the use of Ivermectin. What the fuck are you doing Churchill? I’m sure there’s more heinous bullshit on his channel but fuck me if I can stand more than a minute of it.
@Antivax_Detector_Dog has a good sense.
4 Likes
Hey I’m sure he’s been wrong once or twice. Unlike you of course.
No need for boosters then folks (?) - woof, woof
As for me, I’ll believe the UK Docs and the studies, even when the studies are from the US.
1 Like
No one here has said anything like that.
The “angle” is another disingenuous attack by claiming that someone is antivax when he clearly isn’t. A bit like claiming someone’s racist when he clearly isn’t. Oh look it’s the same people involved.
1 Like
Hey churchill I’m going to play the doctor card. When injecting into the lateral deltoid with small gauge needles, you do not need to aspirate. It doesn’t actually tell you if you’re in a vein or not. It’s more useful in other situations, but even then it’s not particularly helpful. I know this because I aspirate to confirm that I’m in or out of vessels regularly, and I know the typical anatomy of the veins of the arm very well because I’m the one brought in when normal people can’t get vascular access.
There’s also near zero evidence that it’s the cause of myocarditis or pericarditis either. Stop getting your information from anti-vaxx morons.
jal he’s fucking getting his information from someone who regularly spreads misinformation about vaccination and ivermectin. That’s cause for serious concern.
(he also hid this information, so he knows it’s bad too)
anti-vaxxers? at least ikes is close by to let them know
You didn’t get this paper from him though… did you?
That pre-print also won’t ever be published in it’s current form in a reputable journal for the reasons I’ve posted.
It’s a preprint? JFC
So is vaccine protection waning or not? Specifically Pfizer. I’m not getting a booster if the protection is not waning, so can you self-proclaimed experts and warriors for the truth let me know what to do here.
3 Likes
Almost certainly the protection will wane a bit (which is normal for many vaccines) and I think reputable sources are saying everyone should get a booster at some point.
Is it waning or not though? And how much is a bit. Seriously, if protection doesn’t wane there is absolutely no need for a booster unless other studies suggest boosters offer another benefit, for example, increasing the protection over 2 shots alone. But if vaccines are not waning and boosters do not provide additional protections, then I don’t particularly care what reputable sources say.
It waning, but it’s not clear (to me anyway) that it is waning enough to where you’re worried about a significantly increased risk of death. Of course, there are reasons other than death to not to want to contract COVID.
cliffs: get the jab
1 Like
FWIW my wife sent me something about the VA study earlier this week, and she is very much not an antivaxer.
I don’t know his work, but I have heard from a trusted source that the doctor CN accused of being anti-vax supports vaccinations.