3 ms·
That accurately reflected the results of the trial, which reflected performance against the original wild type. Do you dispute them? However, scientific consen
by _djo_ 5y ago
That accurately reflected the results of the trial, which reflected performance against the original wild type. Do you dispute them?
However, scientific consensus was that we may not see such great results in the real world, especially if variants emerged. That was all highlighted in the Nature article I posted, which came out at the same time.
I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand. Mutations always change the game, but the commentary (and hope) was that the vaccines would continue protecting against severe disease, hospitalisation and death even with new mutations. That has broadly been the case.
- parkingrift 5y ago>However, scientific consensus was that we may not see such great results in the real world, especially if variants emerged. That was all highlighted in the Nature article I posted, which came out at the same time. They were not released at the same time. Check the dates. Your Nature article was written almost two months before the actual studies were released. It was based on preliminary evidence. It's not a rebuttal to the actual studies. The actual studies are a rebuttal to the Nature article. >I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand Likewise. Why do you insist on lying and perpetuating lies?
- _djo_ 5y agoI could bring up dozens of other examples of prominent scientists and public health professionals saying the same thing after the final Phase III results were published, but frankly I have to wonder if you’re worth the time it would take to collate them given the way you keep using pejorative terms like ‘gaslight’ and ‘lie’ in this discussion. You’re starting from a predefined agenda and seeking evidence to fit, which is no way to go about things.