Spoiler alert: 'vaccine efficacy' against breakthrough infections is 11-30%, but 'only' 80-90% of study participants experienced adverse events, which were 'more common among younger' people
Upon second thought, I think the above-discussed study may appropriately considered in the following way:
The authors design and enquiry into their secondary aim (injection efficacy) is--functionally--akin to studying the marginal efficacy of an input in about the same way as investigating, after everyone had three pints of beer, what the effect of a fourth jug might be.
To at that point actually compare the effect on, say, sober, a group whose members had 'only' one or two pints beforehand people would seriously complicate matters, hence these issues must be left unasked.
Now, having stated this, let's see if we can mandate everyone getting a fourth pint anyways.
Plenty to chew on here. Thank you💕
You're perfectly welcome.
Upon second thought, I think the above-discussed study may appropriately considered in the following way:
The authors design and enquiry into their secondary aim (injection efficacy) is--functionally--akin to studying the marginal efficacy of an input in about the same way as investigating, after everyone had three pints of beer, what the effect of a fourth jug might be.
To at that point actually compare the effect on, say, sober, a group whose members had 'only' one or two pints beforehand people would seriously complicate matters, hence these issues must be left unasked.
Now, having stated this, let's see if we can mandate everyone getting a fourth pint anyways.
Now imagine a politician or a journalist reading the full report.
It would certainly be revealing to let them read it a couple of times and take notes and then let them do a test on what they understood.
😂😂