In this study the vaccine reduced Covid-19 infection rates by like 90%, and essentially eliminated severe cases. This is great!
But the same number of people died in each group. So vaccines do not reduce Covid-19 mortality, period. Does this mean vaccines are a waste of time? No, of course not! It just means we should be precise and correct in the claims we make based on statistics, and not fudge them to say things that sound good but are not true.
EDIT: Fair enough, I'm making the same sloppy mistakes... this study doesn't say anything, positive or negative, about vaccine effects on mortality. But it certainly doesn't support the journalist's claim. It does support the claim that vaccines dramatically reduce infection rates and severity, which is great and reason enough to get vaccinated.
I don’t follow the logical leap. It’s clear the paper doesn’t demonstrate a difference, you’re right.
I do think it’s disingenuous to say that the vaccine categorically doesn’t prevent deaths, if it can prevent infections that would lead to deaths, that’s a good outcome. Additionally, the real world performance in the general population is showing a massive divergence in deaths and cases in elderly populations after the coverage of vaccines. That may be from some other variable and not vaccines, but I’m not sure that I would be able to suggest an alternative cause.
Did I categorically say that the vaccine doesn't prevent deaths? I simply cited a study which shows no effect, and scolded the journalist for making a claim that doesn't seem to have solid scientific support. I'm not making a statement about vaccines, I'm making a statement about journalists playing fast and loose with science.
> That may be from some other variable and not vaccines, but I’m not sure that I would be able to suggest an alternative cause.
This is why we do science. Your lack of imagination about causal relationships is not evidence for or against any particular causal relationship.
2 people in the placebo group died with a covid infection and 1 in the vaccinated group. That is way to little data to even remotely make such a bold claim.
Or, if I follow your flawed logic, Covid vaccines reduce mortality by 50%!
The bold claim is the journalist in this article who said that vaccines are the reason we should see a 90% reduction in mortality. That is an optimistic projection, not a fact-based statement. That's all. Christ, people think I'm anti-vaccine just for being pedantic about science reporting...
But the same number of people died in each group. So vaccines do not reduce Covid-19 mortality, period. Does this mean vaccines are a waste of time? No, of course not! It just means we should be precise and correct in the claims we make based on statistics, and not fudge them to say things that sound good but are not true.
EDIT: Fair enough, I'm making the same sloppy mistakes... this study doesn't say anything, positive or negative, about vaccine effects on mortality. But it certainly doesn't support the journalist's claim. It does support the claim that vaccines dramatically reduce infection rates and severity, which is great and reason enough to get vaccinated.