It's kind of interesting you're accusing me of skimming the article, when based on the timestamps of these posts I can prove you literally skimmed the article.

It's kind of interesting you're accusing me of skimming the article, when based on the timestamps of these posts I can prove you literally skimmed the article. One of the main points of the article is that the early Pfizer data is not consistent with the hypothesis that the vaccine provides additional protection after a person has been successfully infected. Do you actually understand the argument? If you can refute this, I welcome it. I am not adopting the position of the article. I am frustrated that every time it is surfaced I get the same garbage responses and vitriol, because the proper response to the theory, if true, is to be more conservative in how we think about the protection of the vaccine and stop telling people it turns COVID into a cold.