3 ms·

This is the quote where they state they controlled for severity aka “accounted for”. I already posted it btw. Have a good day. Keep denying it. “ We found that

by mint2 3y ago

This is the quote where they state they controlled for severity aka “accounted for”. I already posted it btw. Have a good day. Keep denying it. “ We found that vaccinated and unvaccinated participants exhaled similar numbers of SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies (Fig 2C), when accounting for age, sex, presence of co-morbidities, days since symptom onset and symptom severity”

taeric 3y ago
Right, and if you read the data they use to make this claim, you see that it supports the fact that vaccinated shed as much as unvaccinated. If you restrict your claim to "vaccinated don't get severe symptoms, and therefore don't have the highest shedding," I agree with you. What you cannot claim, is that vaccinated shed less. At the 95% CI of the data, vaccinated is actually higher for the sample size they have here. Again, their data literally shows that, outside of samples outside the 95% CI, you can't tell vaccinated from unvaccinated. I think if you are arguing that this is only breakthrough cases in vaccinated individuals, the stronger claim probably sticks, but they don't have the data to make that claim in this study.
- mint2 3y ago
  Bonjour. It is clear the proverbial horse does not want water.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Am I misstating the data? Which literally shows more virus exhaled by 95% of all vaccinated versus 95% of unvaccinated? And where do they state that vaccinated exhale less than unvaccinated? Specifically, where do they say that? They show the total range of exhaled values is larger for unvaccinated, but the 95% range is higher for vaccinated. It looks dangerously like you are forcing the reading for what you want the truth to be. Not for what the data supports. Note that i want that same value for the truth. I just don't see the data supporting it. And the paper seems to agree, as they are not making as strong of a claim as you are.

by mint2 3y ago

taeric 3y ago

Right, and if you read the data they use to make this claim, you see that it supports the fact that vaccinated shed as much as unvaccinated. If you restrict your claim to "vaccinated don't get severe symptoms, and therefore don't have the highest shedding," I agree with you. What you cannot claim, is that vaccinated shed less. At the 95% CI of the data, vaccinated is actually higher for the sample size they have here. Again, their data literally shows that, outside of samples outside the 95% CI, you can't tell vaccinated from unvaccinated. I think if you are arguing that this is only breakthrough cases in vaccinated individuals, the stronger claim probably sticks, but they don't have the data to make that claim in this study.

mint2 3y ago
Bonjour. It is clear the proverbial horse does not want water.
- taeric 3y ago
  Am I misstating the data? Which literally shows more virus exhaled by 95% of all vaccinated versus 95% of unvaccinated? And where do they state that vaccinated exhale less than unvaccinated? Specifically, where do they say that? They show the total range of exhaled values is larger for unvaccinated, but the 95% range is higher for vaccinated. It looks dangerously like you are forcing the reading for what you want the truth to be. Not for what the data supports. Note that i want that same value for the truth. I just don't see the data supporting it. And the paper seems to agree, as they are not making as strong of a claim as you are.