20
Comments (9)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
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.

1
45forever 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why is the SA variant 8 times more prevalent in vaccinated people vs unvaccinated?

Why? That’s all.

1
cancelmeplz 1 point ago +1 / -0

Here's an analogy that may be helpful. "Of the people that died in car crashes, the people that were wearing seat belts were in much more violent collisions"

Does this mean that seatbelts cause more violent collisions?? No, it's just because it's harder for you to die if you're wearing a seatbelt so you won't see people dying in the smaller crashes. The SA variant is the violent collision. It shows up more in the infected vaccinated group bc the vaccine (the seatbelt) prevented all the other infections (deaths in minor collisions).