8 ms·
"no evidence". The first round of boosters have shown strong efficacy. Why would a second round of boosters not have any efficacy? It seems that you've chosen t
by jewayne 5y ago
"no evidence". The first round of boosters have shown strong efficacy. Why would a second round of boosters not have any efficacy? It seems that you've chosen the wrong null hypothesis.
- Mikeb85 5y agoShow a study, any study (and not just a news article that links to another article claiming 'studies' show blah) where they reduce the risk of serious infection or transmission versus only 2 doses. Simply pumping up antibodies for a couple weeks isn't the same as efficacy.
- jewayne 5y agoFirst off, I need to point out that you are committing the logical fallacy of selective rigor. An increase in neutralizing antibodies is not the same as a clinical trial proving efficacy, but I'm pretty sure that increases in neutralizing antibodies STRONGLY correlate with vaccine efficacy, across different diseases. So you've already called out your own bias. So, here is a pre-print that does show real-world effectiveness (as opposed to efficacy). https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.15.21266341v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.15.21266341v... And of course I know that you will apply your selective rigor by pointing out that it is a pre-print. But less-biased people will realize that science can only work so quickly.