Well exactly. If you want to claim that the CDC's literature review shows that they are lying in favour of the pharma industry you'll need to actually do a literature review yourself.sheldrake wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:59 pmEh? post a wall of papers I hadn't even read the abstracts from?Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:28 pm
I’m trying to show you what you’d need to do if you wanted your argument to be taken seriously.
Vaccine has no effect on household transmission
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7075
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Vaccine has no effect on household transmission
Re: Vaccine has no effect on household transmission
Indeed. It's a huge impact on hospitalisations.lpm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:01 pmThings look like tiny incremental improvements of questionable value when it's an improvement from, say, 86% to 92% to 94%.
But when the same numbers are flipped to risk falling from 14% to 8% to 6% it looks like a very useful improvement.
Don't lose sight of what boosters will achieve with only an incremental improvement.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: Vaccine has no effect on household transmission
Are you really going to make me review *every* paper? Isnt evidence of one clear twisting of a paper’s conclusion enough to doubt other claims they make sufficient that you want to check for yourself?Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 6:54 pmWell exactly. If you want to claim that the CDC's literature review shows that they are lying in favour of the pharma industry you'll need to actually do a literature review yourself.sheldrake wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:59 pmEh? post a wall of papers I hadn't even read the abstracts from?Woodchopper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:28 pm
I’m trying to show you what you’d need to do if you wanted your argument to be taken seriously.
Re: Vaccine has no effect on household transmission
ignore. I posted the wrong draft.