Let's do it this way: The article you cite on archive.vn which you allege proves that Covid vaxes are all useless is attributed to "The Lancet".
Good! Now I have something concrete - the name of a journal one can usually trust. Of many 1000's of articles published from all kinds of sources and locations worldwide, they've been forced to retract only the tiniest number of them. And yes, their biggest booboo was to publish a letter (note the difference between a letter and research) from a couple of dozen scientists in the very first days of Covid (Feb 2020) that poohpoohed the possibility that Covid came from a lab and not wildlife. So yes, sometimes they publish what they later learn is crap, but overall, given the volume of what they publish, they've got a pretty good record.
And the important thing here is that you are citing The Lancet as your authority on the efficacy of the vaccines.
Are you SURE you want to do that? Yes? Certain?
Ok, don't say I didn't warn you. Because instead of looking at your dubious link that purports to show something from The Lancet, I'll just go directly to The Lancet website to see if they have any articles about how well the vaxes are doing in the UK.
And no, I did not cherry-pick. I took the first article I found. It happens to be a study of how the vaxes are working for Scots and comes from the U of Edinburgh. This article is from late April --- Interim findings from first-dose mass COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and COVID-19 hospital admissions in Scotland: a national prospective cohort study
Highlights below are my own. Notice they studied the results of the very earliest vaccine rollout - of 12/8/20 - 2/2/21 - when only the most vulnerable - namely the elderly (average age reported in this wave of vaccines was 65 yrs old) were being vaxxed in the UK and the US. A 91% reduced rate of covid-related hospital admissions for the entire elderly population, with an 83% reduced rate for the subset demographic of those over 80 years is a pretty damned good efficacy rate for a study of 1.3 million Scots.
The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer–BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19.
Methods
...... hospital admission patient records for 5.4 million people ......
Findings
Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65.0 years (SD 16.2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85–94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28–34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75–94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72–89 at 28–34 days post-vaccination).
........ [tons more details deleted]
So there we have it. Your article from an archive in Vietnam that purports to speak for the Lancet, versus my article from the Lancet itself. Your article says it works 0.8% of the time. Mine says that in the first roll-out available for study in Scotland, it's at 91%.
Sorry Charlie, but your evidence has underwhelmed me. I will take my article chosen randomly from the horse's mouth any day of the week, over your (no doubt copy/pasted from some conspiracy website) article from origins unknown that purports to speak for that same horse.
Re: 186 - Really good research. Thanks for putting in the effort for the issue at hand.
Yes, but how did the Lancet study arrive at the conclusion that it works? Did they use the same test as everyone else gets?
But if was that test, the inventor says you cannot tell one thing from another, as it was not designed to indicate that conclusion.
Yes we all remember the "accurate" hit article for the cabal they all did on Hydroxychloroquine that they quickly retracted. Most trusted kinda like CNN.