>>13777348>None of this really mattersVery good, then I'm going to let this pass for the sake of brevity.
>we have other studies with health care workers...Go ahead and post them.
>I'm going by another study out of Israel which showed significant declining efficacy against infection for each month after being vaccinated.Which one? It's difficult to discuss this if you just refer to a country rather than the actual study.
>Good lordWhat exactly is wrong with the part you directly quoted? It's what the study shows.
>You posted a study, I posted a study. No, I've posted not one but two studies, both with an N over a million. You, on the other hand, have posted a single preprint that does not show what you think it shows. Your study has a number of flaws, which I won't get into unless you want me to, because it also has merits. But either way, it's besides the point because the questions the three papers we have at hand are similar but distinct in an important way. The two studies I've posted ask:
"What are the chances that a vaccinated person gets infected with the virus, relative to an unvaccinated person?"
The preprint you posted aks:
"What are the chances that a vaccinated person, who happens to be infected despite vaccination, passes on the virus to someone else?"
Both of these are perfectly legitimate scientific questions. But when it comes to Anon asking if vaccines help "protect others", the prior probability of infection given vaccination status is critical. You therefore cannot simply ignore half the means of protection that vaccines offer in answering that question.
I'm not saying that vaccines are a magic bullet that'll render you impervious. The exact number of efficacy to infection depends on a host of factors, including the virus variant and vaccine type. But I object to insinuations that are based on data that do not allow for them, like you are doing. If you have additional studies to post, great, and I'll consider them as you post them.
