In other words, there was some evidence a flu shot recipient might be more vulnerable to a coronavirus although well protected against many other forms of infection.
For those who understand the first sentence, is the second one really the same meaning in layman's terms?
These folks ought to know but who in their right mind would trust them?
https://liber8-gilead.blogspot.com/2014/07/liber8-gilead-corporate-organized-crime.html
Yes, it’s substantially correct. This type of phrasing is used because of how difficult something is to prove as a fundamental cause - without any doubt - just by seeing them together lots of times.
“Vaccine...interference was significantly associated with...”
This means one cannot PROVE that it was CAUSED BY it, just that the two were observed together more than can be explained by chance...meaning that the vaccine was often observed along with unusually higher than usual levels of coronavirus and of human metapneumovirus.
This phrasing means an observation is being made that they tend to occur together, rather than a smoking gun of proof that one is definitely caused by the other.
This is probably a terrible example because the converse is true, but I hope it helps a little: smoke is more often observed along with fire than can be expected by sheer coincidence, although smoke itself does not CAUSE fire. Cars and drivers usually are observed together, although cars do not cause drivers to come into existence.