You missed the radio button on page 3 which lets you see the test positivity rates based on vax status too. There too, the vaxxed and boosted score worst:
Please explain why does your data seem to be an entire outlier from Ontario, Alberta, Scotland, UK and Denmark data?
You also haven't explained how that Lancet study for UK has been disputed.
Nor have you explained how a highly vaxxed country like Canada had 60% of the population infected in past 5 months and how that reduced infection and transmission?
> You missed the radio button on page 3 which lets you see the test positivity rates based on vax status too. There too, the vaxxed and boosted score worst:
Again, --- any high school statistics students should know why that rate can be, and is completely decoupled from the actual case rate (non-uniform selection bias-- which is obviously present because the size of the strata doesn't equal their base rates in the population).
We have looked at the actual entire United States data. You are cherry-picking and Gish-galloping. You completely ignore the mountain of evidence that contradicts your view, but endlessly want to talk about specific datapoints which do (most of which you don't even provide). You bury the other side in citations but refuse to look at theirs.
This is not a means to actually reach consensus or have an honest discussion.
> You also haven't explained how that Lancet study for UK has been disputed.
My earlier citation, BEFORE YOU POSTED IT, showed that while viral fragments in plasma is equivalent, the actual transmissibility from shed droplets appears to me lower. Your study's primary argument is the opposite. Further, it discussions transmission dynamics in a household, as if this somehow has import on national case rates which is the assertion you made and keep galloping away from.
It's so thoroughly bogus that it's difficult for me to even engage with. In response to April 2022 data indicating that it is likely that transmission is reduced despite earlier data that viral copy fragments are high... you sent me the earlier data that viral copy fragments are high... and then repeatedly demanded to hear why I thought that the conclusions of that earlier study were disputed. Hello? Hello?
Please don't stoop to flamewar or personal attack, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are. Flamewar comments like this one and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32139001 are definitely not ok. Not only is this against the site guidelines, it has the side effect of discrediting your position, which is really bad if you happen to be right.
