Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, none of what you said contradicts my point that "this does not compare favourably with the number needed to vaccinate to prevent a severe COVID hospitalisation now being in the hundreds of thousands, particularly for the young and healthy; and this assumes the jabs have any effectiveness at all, with ever more evidence that they’re actually *negatively effective*", as well as the other points such as that this is only for *one* side effect.
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, none of what you said contradicts my point that "this does not compare favourably with the number needed to vaccinate to prevent a severe COVID hospitalisation now being in the hundreds of thousands, particularly for the young and healthy; and this assumes the jabs have any effectiveness at all, with ever more evidence that they’re actually *negatively effective*", as well as the other points such as that this is only for *one* side effect.
The Nature.com study you cited:
1) did not control SARS-CoV-2 positives for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated
2) was limited in scope to 28 days
3) has conflicts of interest
4) provides zero raw data availability
If you really want to stop the noise, at the very least please filter out studies that fail #3 and #4
Sure, I think all of us could, and would be served better by greater efforts on all sides to be more transparent.