CDC finally conceded yesterday that
“…LIMITED EVIDENCE IN REAL-WORLD SETTINGS TO DATE CORROBORATES the findings that vaccination can provide improved protection for previously infected individuals.”
“…LIMITED EVIDENCE IN REAL-WORLD SETTINGS TO DATE CORROBORATES the findings that vaccination can provide improved protection for previously infected individuals.”
It’s buried in the August 6th early release of their four page Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report here:
cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/7…
cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/7…
Their MMWR is a study of antigen+PCR test data (which they no longer rely on) that suggests there’s a real-world benefit from the vaccine for those with prior infection, but it fails to generate a causal link between the vaccine & improved outcomes for those with prior infection.
“As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying & investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause [to] help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest …importance.”-CDC site
Yet the window for analyzing the PCR & antigen test data to determine reinfection for the purposes of their contrived MMWR study was from May 1 to June 30… whether asymptomatic or symptomatic!
Coincidence?
Coincidence?
They acknowledge five limitations of the study but the biggest flaw is they count asymptomatic cases and we all know unvaccinated people are more likely to get tested and will therefore produce more positives. In fact, some employers require unvaccinated to get tested frequently!
Instead of saying “vaccinated are possibly less likely to get tested,” why didn’t they try to correct for the more-likely-to-get-tested bias among the unvaccinated vs the vaccinated? Aren’t negative tests retained in the database? If not, there must be some way to estimate bias.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
