ScienceOfLosing wrote:Harvard Study -
Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
snippet:
Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.
Of the top 5 counties that have the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifies 4 of them as "High" Transmission counties. Chattahoochee (Georgia), McKinley (New Mexico), and Arecibo (Puerto Rico) counties have above 90% of their population fully vaccinated with all three being classified as "High" transmission. Conversely, of the 57 counties that have been classified as "low" transmission counties by the CDC, 26.3% (15) have percentage of population fully vaccinated below 20%.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/10/subramanian-harvard-covid-vaccines/Alas, there’s just one problem for Horowitz and company: S.V. Subramanian, the Harvard professor of population health and geography behind the paper, says the vaccine doubters are completely wrong.
“That conclusion is misleading and inaccurate,” Subramanian told me of Horowitz’s Blaze column over email. “This paper supports vaccination as an important strategy for reducing infection and transmission, along with hand-washing, mask-wearing, and physical distancing.”
...
But instead of concluding that such data means vaccines are useless, Subramanian says his findings suggest that it’s unwise to ignore other treatments and precautionary steps—say, masks or lockdowns. In other words, he writes, the “sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined… other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination.”
...
Over email, Subramanian insisted that the positive effects of vaccines are not in doubt: “Other research has clearly and definitively established that the vaccines significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization and mortality.”
So that took me like, 5 seconds of googling to find. The guy who wrote the paper says using it as an anti-vax argument is stupid
Y'all really need to read the things you cite. And like, I didn't even need to find that, cause in the article you linked to, it says
The sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants. Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates.
Literally says "we need to increase vaccination rates" in the piece you're using to say vaccines don't work.
Are you afraid of a little jab?