> Sentence number #1 of the Twitter post: A twitter post which is _not_ specifically abut the Provincetown outbreak, the one that you called "this rather serio

> Sentence number #1 of the Twitter post: A twitter post which is _not_ specifically abut the Provincetown outbreak, the one that you called "this rather serious disaster". A post from before that outbreak is by definition not spin of that outbreak, and that was your claim. > Sorry friend, they are 93% effective. Sorry friend, that varies by vaccine (there are several) and virus variant (there are several). You did notice the "80% efficacy against infection" on the diagram. Quoting a higher number is anyway irrelevant, it does not exactly disprove my point. > My point is it would be much better if they actually stopped the spread of the virus. No fooling, but you have to use what you have so there's no point in raising that. > Says the one who used Twitter as a source? I think I made it as clear as possible that the Financial Times of London was the ultimate source of that graphic? Anyway, I don't think that you have much of interest to say, so have a nice day!