The problem I have with this article isn't the data, it's unclear what it tries to convey at all. The first part of the article is an exposé of the evolution o

The problem I have with this article isn't the data, it's unclear what it tries to convey at all. The first part of the article is an exposé of the evolution of the epidemic, transmissibility and fatality rates. Fine, but at this point, I haven't read any thesis, question, point, claim or argument he would like to answer or prove. It's just a wall of data. Halfway through, he finally asks the million dollar question "How good are vaccines against Delta?" That's where he has to retreat to the fact that any data about large populations available is limited: > The best data we have is from Israel, which used Pfizer. He then mentions percentages from an article from marketwatch.com and a briefing from technical briefing from the UK government, and goes on to extrapolate several claims based on those sources. The takeaways in the latter part of his article are generic and have been repeated at nauseam by the medical community and health policy experts at large. Thomas Pueyo isn't a medical or policy expert. He's a data analyst / publicist. Sure, he's entitled to write musings on his blog. But I don't regard him as an authoritative source because he's able to compile online graphs and stats into an piece which seems to be easily digestible on the surface level.