They never truly tracked the effect in the average population. When you dig into the numbers they publish it's all bullshit and assumptions. They have no clue.
Nobody is allowed to run a study on differential outcomes between unvaccinated, vaccinated, and medicated (ivermectin and others.)
The few that do exist, which are pulled from what little data even exists, shows a complete failure of the overall narrative.
Looking at actual historical data and the background of the mRNA delivery method itself, it's more likely the damn thing increases incidence of symptoms and long term will cause worse mutations of the virus.
For example according to this article 59% of hospitalizations in Israel are vaccinated (which OP's article calls "half"). The question is what do you compare that percentage to to judge effectiveness?
78% of ELIGIBLE Israelis are vaccinated. That indicates some effectiveness because the % of hospitalized infected is lower.
Then again 78% of eligible is just 58% of overall Israelis (according to OP's article), which would indicate it does fuck all.
Then again again those not eligible and the unvaxxed are the young and very young who don't end up in the hospital often anyway, so older people appear to get some benefit from the vaccine.
All seems a bit more like reading tea leaves than statistics :D
That indicates some effectiveness because the % of hospitalized infected is lower.
You're deriving the wrong conclusion from the data.
How do you know people didn't naturally fight off COVID?
How do you know they didn't already have COVID?
How do you know they haven't already been treated for COVID BEFORE getting the vaccine?
And where is the control study showing vaccinated versus unvaccinated related to efficacy?
Then again again those not eligible and the unvaxxed are the young and very young who don't end up in the hospital often anyway, so older people appear to get some benefit from the vaccine.
I keep seeing people post this fabricated lie everywhere with zero data to back it up.
HOW is it effective? Based on what study? Based on what control group? Based on what risk factors? WHERE is this data people here keep referring to that these vaccines work for old people?
Because old people are still suffering from the clots like young people, just at a slower rate, you can literally see examples of it here:
https://t.me/s/covidvaccineinjuries
A lot of it has to do with their immune systems just not being as active, so the negative side effects are slower to appear compared to younger people with more active immune systems.
I really wish people would stop parroting the anti-science narrative from the media that "the vaccines are fine for old people" literally based on nothing.
Now if you have some longitudinal studies based on blood work done on 65+ individuals, feel free to share it. Because if they show efficacy rates of improving health or reducing symptomatic effects, I would gladly like to read it. But I haven't seen one person provide any peer reviewed control data about efficacy rates in older people. Just a lot of disinformation through a game of telephone.
What statistics?
They never truly tracked the effect in the average population. When you dig into the numbers they publish it's all bullshit and assumptions. They have no clue.
Nobody is allowed to run a study on differential outcomes between unvaccinated, vaccinated, and medicated (ivermectin and others.)
The few that do exist, which are pulled from what little data even exists, shows a complete failure of the overall narrative.
Looking at actual historical data and the background of the mRNA delivery method itself, it's more likely the damn thing increases incidence of symptoms and long term will cause worse mutations of the virus.
For example according to this article 59% of hospitalizations in Israel are vaccinated (which OP's article calls "half"). The question is what do you compare that percentage to to judge effectiveness?
78% of ELIGIBLE Israelis are vaccinated. That indicates some effectiveness because the % of hospitalized infected is lower.
Then again 78% of eligible is just 58% of overall Israelis (according to OP's article), which would indicate it does fuck all.
Then again again those not eligible and the unvaxxed are the young and very young who don't end up in the hospital often anyway, so older people appear to get some benefit from the vaccine.
All seems a bit more like reading tea leaves than statistics :D
You're deriving the wrong conclusion from the data.
How do you know people didn't naturally fight off COVID?
How do you know they didn't already have COVID?
How do you know they haven't already been treated for COVID BEFORE getting the vaccine?
And where is the control study showing vaccinated versus unvaccinated related to efficacy?
I keep seeing people post this fabricated lie everywhere with zero data to back it up.
HOW is it effective? Based on what study? Based on what control group? Based on what risk factors? WHERE is this data people here keep referring to that these vaccines work for old people?
Because old people are still suffering from the clots like young people, just at a slower rate, you can literally see examples of it here: https://t.me/s/covidvaccineinjuries
A lot of it has to do with their immune systems just not being as active, so the negative side effects are slower to appear compared to younger people with more active immune systems.
I really wish people would stop parroting the anti-science narrative from the media that "the vaccines are fine for old people" literally based on nothing.
Now if you have some longitudinal studies based on blood work done on 65+ individuals, feel free to share it. Because if they show efficacy rates of improving health or reducing symptomatic effects, I would gladly like to read it. But I haven't seen one person provide any peer reviewed control data about efficacy rates in older people. Just a lot of disinformation through a game of telephone.
the stats of overall serious cases in vaccinated countries, lol.