From your link:
“
Although follow-up of the Pfizer-BioNTech trial demonstrated sustained vaccine
protection against infection (91%) (3), our results suggest vaccines are less effective in
preventing infections with the more recent Delta variant. “
LilFarmer’S link is a horrible article.
“Although follow-up of the Pfizer-BioNTech trial demonstrated sustained vaccine
protection against infection (91%) (3), our results suggest vaccines are less effective in
preventing infections with the more recent Delta variant. “
They literally made this up, for example.
Why don’t you both be a little more specific with your issue with this study (it is a study, not an article).
Do you have an issue with the methodology (Cox proportional hazards models)?
The timeline (Feb-August)?
The number of subjects (619,755)?
If you believe their analysis is flawed, provide an explanation as to why other than “it is terrible”
Or do you just not like the results?