14 Oct '21 14:44>
@sh76 saidaha
I read the entire article several times, when it was published back in August.
It has the usual weasel-wording about how unsure we are and it emphasizes how awesome the vax is even if you are previously infected, but there is NO data anywhere that shows conclusively that non-infected-vaxxed is better than vax-non-infected.
weasel wording. NO data. gotcha.
so basically you saw a set of data (the israeli one), an expert (not you) says "it's interesting but let's see if it contradicts what other data we have" and you said "NO, NO, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT SAYS AND IT SAYS I DON'T HAVE TO GET THE VACCINE". On the other hand the overwhelming consensus right now is that you should get the vaccine and you're claiming this consensus, reached to by experts (not you), is based on NO data.
You post a link that doesn't actually support your stance and you ask me to pick the "right" bits from it so i reach the same conclusion you did.
If I understood correctly and you really are a lawyer, it would explain this mode of thinking. Present just the right facts that seem to support your position, distract or don't mention facts that contradict it and help the jury (in this case us) reach the "right" conclusion. I just didn't think you actually begun to believe your own con.
"that shows conclusively that non-infected-vaxxed is better than vax-non-infected."
It's so funny seeing people emit opinions on what is "conclusive" or not on subjects beyond their understanding.
That nebraska article i linked says being vaxxed is better, but you think it's wrong. Why.