RFK - Make America Healthy? again?

That was ethical because you didn't know yet the vaccine was a working one and because a phase 3 is necessary for approval anyway, you have no other options.

After you know it works it's unethical to prevent anyone to get it basically, given the disease is circulating a lot.

What I'm doing is trying fully understand the basis of your claims that the mRNA vaccines reduce the transmission of the disease. You described "real world data" and observational studies, neither of which are conclusive to make that claim, either individually or collectively.

Well, you will have to let what I've provided to this point do that or not. I never claimed real world data or observational studies were conclusive individually or collectively, once again. Thanks for mis-attributing that claim to me one last time for good measure. Good luck.

There were subsequent phase 3 RCTs performed on the same mRNA vaccines for different cohorts, for example children.

for which they didn't know if it worked, because they lowered the doses among other things. Also children were not at risk from that disease to begin with. And again without a phase 3 they had no other option to cover them

"Between the trial results and this, there really is zero doubt."

Sourc: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...

So that I understand, one can have no about about a matter for which there are no conclusive results?

Yes, between the TRIAL RESULTS and the real world data. Not JUST the real world data, and not the real world data and observational studies which you keep claiming I said.

I said between the TRIAL RESULTS which I already PATIENTLY EXPLAINED TO YOU WHY THAT IS NEARLY 100% on its own. The trial results left a tiny room for doubt but the real world data supported the conclusion so clearly that the remaining doubt was effectively removed (yes I would call that conclusive).

At this point its either dishonesty or illiteracy.

I'm no longer discussing this with you. Move on. Take a free internet point because I didn't say 100% or whatever. Good lord. It gets really tiring explaining things to people like they are 5 years old only for them to act like they are 4.

The fact they didn't know it worked for children eliminates the ethical concern you raised. Whether or not children are at risk of the disease has no basis to establish whether or not they contract and transmit the virus causing it, and so has no basis to prematurely conclude whether or not the vaccine prevents that transmission.

Illiteracy it is.

phase 3 trials ARE randomized control trials, that look for efficacy.

Ethicals concerns are lower if the procedure you are basically preventing people to access is not life saving

Right. So with ethical concerns eliminated, what's the issue with including transmission as an additional efficacy endpoint for the mRNA phase 3 trials for children?

In other words, you're unable to reconcile your claim of having no doubts that vaccines reduce transmission, which you stated are based on the combination of real-world data and observation studies, the same real-world data and observational studies which you agree are not conclusive. And so as a result, that means I'm illiterate.

No. You're actually illiterate. You AGAIN (above and below) claimed I said real world data and observational studies were conclusive when I very clearly didn't.

Your entire argument is a straw man and I'm not sure you have the ability to read at this point as I've pointed out to you multiple times that it was mostly the trial data, not those things. Good luck with that. It's definitely something you should work on.

It's actually breath-taking to watch you repeatedly make this error. Like I thought BJ was brain dead, but I think he could at least identify the problem. He would just make up some lie to get out of it. You..like can't even read it? Not sure at this point.

edit: to be as clear as possible, I only think it is conclusive WHEN CONSIDERED IN TANDEM WITH THE PHASE 3 TRIAL DATA. Any claims you make that I have said otherwise are FALSE.

That's a different issue than running a new RCT with a vaccine you already know works for adults which is what gorgo told you would have been unethical.

I think it was about sample size, the phase 3 trials for kids had a redic low sample size and trasmission would have required a huge one to control for all the hetereogenity in family size, working patterns of cohabitants and so on

I've asked how non-conclusive sources could lead to a belief that has "zero doubt". Would be grateful if that question could be answered.

Would be grateful if you could read, but here we are.

Why would the sample size for asymptomatic infection need to be larger than the sample size for symptomatic infection? I would think the opposite would be true, since as you stated children are less likely to get the symptomatic disease, thus asymptomatic infections are more likely than symptomatic, thus allowing for a smaller sample size to demonstrate efficacy.

Do you have zero doubt about inability to read, based on inconclusive data about my inability to read?

It seems that Gorgie is so used to communicating in the argot of professional researchers he has forgotten how to talk to the laity.

Yes, Doodie, it is indeed easy to forget how to write to someone that can't read.

Wait maybe there was a miscommunication, i thought you meant to test the vaccine for transmission to third parties, in a RCT

As I see it the only way to reliably demonstrate efficacy against transmission of infection is to demonstrate test subjects are never infected, vs control subjects that are.

Not necessarily. If vaccinated people on average have lower viral loads and if transmissibility is a function among other things of viral loads, then vaccination can decrease trasmission rates for a time even if infections are the same.

But otoh if being vaccinated modifies people behavior, for example reducing their willingness to take other precautions , the opposite effect is at play.

And then you have the time decay of protections. If protections decay fairly rapidly but the behaviour adjustment doesn't change, you basically have a lot of vaccinated people who would have distanced and taken other precautions which don't anymore, who after a while are as capable as anyone else of getting infected and trasmitting the virus, so you increased trasmission a lot vs not having the vaccine available.

Or not, because maybe even without a vaccine available people stop distancing anyway after some time because "life calls", and/or after they get covid the first time they change their behaviour like if they were vaccinated.

And the above list of second order effects is not comprehensive of all the considerations about the topic.

WRT changes in attitude, if you believe wearing a mask in public decreases trasmission rates, just think about the significant slice of the population that was wearing a mask willingly but stopped after vaccination.

Basically there are a lot of moving part that make it close to impossible to quantify the net effect of trasmission of vaccination especially through time. What good it is to know that, say, trasmission is lower for 3 months if that gets away completly in 9 months for example?

And can you actually measure any specific contribution to trasmission during a pandemic where cases co-variate according to 10+ variables and you don't even know how much each of those variable quantitatively impacts trasmission?

Simply, it was folly to think we could make any solid claim about trasmission related to vaccination at all, except perhaps that for a few months vaccinated people are very protected and so won't get infected much and won't infect others much. But over the medium term, accounting for the expected behavioural change? lol no way to estimate even if the impact was actually positive (for transmission).