20
Comments (9)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
2
45forever 2 points ago +3 / -1

And the article seems to gloss over that point- mainly speaking to the issue of the differing strains.

But as your post title points out- people who didn’t get the VAX were less likely to get Covid (South African strain, assuming its newer strain).

Shouldn’t that STOP them in their tracks? Where is the common sense?

-2
cancelmeplz -2 points ago +1 / -3

Funny you talk about lack of common sense when you lack basic reading comprehension. People without the vaccine were not less likely to get Covid. Of people that WERE infected, the SA variant showed higher prevalence in vaccinated people than non vaccinated.

3
45forever 3 points ago +3 / -0

What a shitshow of comprehension you are displaying.

You go back and read the article, dipstick.

You could read “THE SKY IS BLUE” and argue that it doesn’t say the sky isn’t red. You are a fool. I got nothing else for you.

0
cancelmeplz 0 points ago +1 / -1

Of the people infected, vaccinated people had a larger percentage of SA variant. This doesn't mean they had more cases. Some simple numbers to illustrate.

1000 vaccinated people 10 cases of Covid 4 cases of SA variant

1000 non vaccinated people 200 cases of Covid 20 cases of SA variant

A relationship like the one above is the only thing the article claims. They pulled 150 Covid positive people from vaccinated group and compared it to 150 Covid positive people from the unvaccinated group. The vaccinated group were much less likely to get infected with anything. If you can find anything in the article (or anything anywhere) that refutes this please share.