You're the one saying that once covid started, the entire discrepancy could be down to covid. For that to be true, the pre-existing discrepancy would have had to end.
No, you just refuse to accept evidence to the contrary, and then repeat this ad nauseum. Literally nobody has been convinced in the months since you've been trying this approach.
The Chinese vaccines were lower efficacy, but ultimately worked as well as they needed to: prevention of hospitalisation and death was still good, and easily enough to remove a lot of potential stress from the healthcare systems of countries that used it.
The 5% difference that is off of the normal difference could be.
Singapore was a US ally, had US bases, their population doubted that vaccine and they were rich enough to buy Pfizer. This is in comparison to my grandmother whom I normally won't talk to that much in China who had no choice but to take a Chinese vaccine. Singapore had a choice, and they picked the wrong one.
OK? So not the entire discrepancy then. Glad we cleared that up.
If you insist this for *another* 500 posts, people might start believing it-- keep going!
"According to a non-peer reviewed study released by a think tank which was savaged by fellow experts for methodological flaws..."
You guys don't provide any evidence of your claims and I not following science because I don't agree with you. That's literally your argument for like 4 years now, still waiting on this evidence.
Again, you ain't getting it. It's not on me or anyone to disprove masks or lockdowns don't work, it's on the people claiming such things to put forth the evidence."According to a non-peer reviewed study released by a think tank which was savaged by fellow experts for methodological flaws..."
So why are you presenting evidence to try to demonstrate that they don't work then?
You've been presented with evidence countless times. You then either completely ignore it, or make a small misunderstanding or limitation of each study and use that to disregard the entire thing. You cannot read science.
I don't think you know what a US ally is. A US ally means that you do everything you can for the US and the US doesn't have to do anything for you. It doesn't mean you get access to vaccines. You only get them if you are currently useful. Hence, the Aussie buying subs from the US and not France
Singapore sits at the Malacca strait and could have easily had Pfizer test their vaccines on them like Israel. Instead, they picked the worst vaccine of all, maybe even worse than the Cuban one. It goes Moderna = Pfizer > J&J = AstraZeneca > Russian vaccine(Sputnik V) > Cuban > China. Also, they have F-35Bs on order from the US. You don't get those by being a wishy-washy ally like Turkey. If they can get F-35Bs, they can afford to, and have access to Pfizer vaccines.
Because it's pretty obvious they didn't work and made things worse.
You guys post shit studies that align with your worldview vs posting actual well done studies with good methodology. The consensus before covid was masks didn't work (hence why Fauci said they didn't work to begin with) and the RCTs during covid said they didn't work. Pretty funny that you'd probably agree with everything else Cochrane says besides for masks. You simply want masks to work and you cherry pick any bad observational studies that align with your beliefs.
Says the man who has literally just posted a study done by politically-aligned authors and published by a highly partisan think tank that hasn't been peer-reviewed because of concerns about its quality.
Your complaints about methodology usually boil down to insignificant gripes or misunderstandings, while you yourself provide studies of for lower quality-- like the most recent one, which wasn't even peer reviewed. You don't have a leg to stand on here.
Where is any proof masks or lockdowns worked?
Again, there's no studies showing masks or lockdowns did anything. And Cochrane's own analysis says there's no evidence of masks doing anything.
www.newsweek.com
What do you mean "Cochrane's own analysis"? It's a review organisation - essentially a publisher - where the articles represent the individual work of its members.
