45 ms·
Correct. As acknowledged, if you read my responses. In both cases, the public messaging is that vaccination provides substantial benefits throughout the entire
by gfodor 5y ago
Correct. As acknowledged, if you read my responses.
In both cases, the public messaging is that vaccination provides substantial benefits throughout the entire funnel.
The point is that the public messaging is damaging if it turns out that the conditionals are misleading. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I would like to see compelling evidence to dial in my priors. The links you have shared so far do not talk about this problem.
Edit: Maybe before replying again aggressively, you take a stab at repeating the overarching argument back to me, and the consequences of if it were proven true. Hint: if it were proven true, the result would not be to reduce the incentives of vaccination whatsoever.
- shkkmo 5y agoYou aren't doing any better job of communicating than the people who you are trying to correct and the message you are spreading is more easily used to prop up harmful misinformation. I have seen very few if any claims that say "vaccinations reduce your chances of death if you are hospitalized." I have provided a citation showing that vaccinations reduce your chances of hospitalization if infected. This is also easy to infer from the wide number of studies that show higher (per time) rates of protection against hospitalization than against infection. The effects may disappear in any numbers (such as those discussed in the article you linked) from places / times were vaccine availability is limited and resticted to vulnerable groups. This is due to a combination of the selection bias and the small numbers of infections among the vaccinated.