🇳🇱
Yes the article discusses it, but puts weight on the dodgy indirect studies, suggesting their conclusions can be trusted (they cant) and fails to put sufficient weight ont he more direct viral load studies and just presents with some handwaving of "errr er dont know what this means".
The trust is the trust should be reversed. The viral load studies tell us the vaccine is a complete failure on delta in every respect and that the more direct studies mentioned are completely inaccurate due to invoking the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy as a result of their indirect nature.
@Nobody@freeatlantis.com @zleap
In short, the rates described are complete fiction since they are not and can not be conducted in a controlled environment and studies that take that approach are generally considered exceptionally weak due to the aforementioned fallacy.
For example, how do you know those numbers are due to the vaccine and not some other property that is unique to the group of unvaccinated people? One very reasonable assertion is simply that unvaccinated people do not generally take precautions to avoid the virus (like wearing a mask or washing their hands as often) and thus that, rather than the vaccine, is the reason for the difference in numbers. Thus the fallacy I mentioned.
@Nobody@freeatlantis.com @zleap
