First: All 246 people got Covid, so it wasn't the vaccine that directly caused it.
Second, as it says in the article: “While the majority of the population develops full immunity within 14 days of completion of their vaccine series, a small proportion appear to take longer to mount a full antibody response. CDC is actively working to better understand the risk characteristics of this group”
The 3 people were all 65+ in age, which might explain why they hadn't developed full immunity yet.
NYPost is trash in general (I'm a New Yorker), I don't recommend it.
Right buddy. What do you prefer? The New York Times?
The fact still stands that the vaccine does absolutely nothing to protect you from getting it or passing it to someone else. The whole heard immunity thing due to vaccination is a load of crap too.
First, the title never said the vaccine caused covid. Its difficult for me to understand how you interpreted it that way.
Second, those statements are not based on any research or meaningful data. They are statements by those who have proven themselves to not have We The People's best interests at heart.
Third,
The 3 people were all 65+ in age, which might explain why they hadn't developed full immunity yet
Another statement that has absolutely zero to do with any evidence or scientific study.
The science on this whole thing is so bad and so misleading (purposeful or not) that any conclusions are flawed. The best we can do is attempt to get some baselines. All of the statements you are making have nothing to do with reasonable baselines, and are instead part of the proven fraudulent narrative that goes directly against (or is otherwise not supported by) what little science and data that we do have.
and are instead part of the proven fraudulent narrative that goes directly against (or is otherwise not supported by) what little science and data that we do have.
Then technically, all narratives are currently fraudulent, even the ones spread on here.
The article is crap in general though, I definitely agree with you on that.
Then technically, all narratives are currently fraudulent, even the ones spread on here.
Not exactly. There are expositions of the data and other science that are not fraudulent, even if they are not correct, or not complete. Fraudulent means not based on any actual science or based on science with proven false axioms.
This is an incredibly important distinction to take note of when doing research.
What do you mean?
First: All 246 people got Covid, so it wasn't the vaccine that directly caused it.
Second, as it says in the article: “While the majority of the population develops full immunity within 14 days of completion of their vaccine series, a small proportion appear to take longer to mount a full antibody response. CDC is actively working to better understand the risk characteristics of this group”
The 3 people were all 65+ in age, which might explain why they hadn't developed full immunity yet.
NYPost is trash in general (I'm a New Yorker), I don't recommend it.
Right buddy. What do you prefer? The New York Times?
The fact still stands that the vaccine does absolutely nothing to protect you from getting it or passing it to someone else. The whole heard immunity thing due to vaccination is a load of crap too.
First, the title never said the vaccine caused covid. Its difficult for me to understand how you interpreted it that way.
Second, those statements are not based on any research or meaningful data. They are statements by those who have proven themselves to not have We The People's best interests at heart.
Third,
Another statement that has absolutely zero to do with any evidence or scientific study.
The science on this whole thing is so bad and so misleading (purposeful or not) that any conclusions are flawed. The best we can do is attempt to get some baselines. All of the statements you are making have nothing to do with reasonable baselines, and are instead part of the proven fraudulent narrative that goes directly against (or is otherwise not supported by) what little science and data that we do have.
Then technically, all narratives are currently fraudulent, even the ones spread on here.
The article is crap in general though, I definitely agree with you on that.
Not exactly. There are expositions of the data and other science that are not fraudulent, even if they are not correct, or not complete. Fraudulent means not based on any actual science or based on science with proven false axioms.
This is an incredibly important distinction to take note of when doing research.
Nobody said they got it FROM the vaccine.
Interesting that it is trash, despite the fact that they are providing a debatable explanation.
I read a lot of NYT articles and I definitely recommend NYP.