Blaming and labelling has the opposite effect though.

> Unvaccinated, infected inmates had an estimated 36% risk of spreading the virus, compared with 28% among infected vaccinees. After adjustment, any vaccination, previous infection alone, and both vaccination and previous infection cut the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by 22%, 23%, and 40%, respectively.

> Booster doses and more recent vaccination further lowered infectiousness among vaccinated inmates, with each dose conferring an 11% risk reduction; the risk of transmission rose 6% for every 5 weeks that had elapsed since the last shot.

And now we have the opposite situation with those who have had the most boosters and now more likely to catch the new variant that is out.

It is not. The study is available for you to review if you like.

> And now we have the opposite situation with those who have had the most boosters and now more likely to catch the new variant that is out.

I’d like to see that study. Cite, please.

Sure:

www.NewEarthTimes.com/publications/VaccinesKill/New-vaccine-makes-more-infections.html

/this is a joke

It is not.

Erm yes it is ... from the study:

> In adjusted analyses, we estimated that any vaccination ... reduced an index case’s risk of transmitting infection by 22% (6–36%)

CI is much wider than 8pp and the estimated absolute transmission risk CIs actually overlap at 31%. So the study results are consistent with there being no actual difference, also.

If this is the best evidence of a difference in transmission it's not very good.

Also this is Omicron which hardly matters. The justification was the earlier variants.

(That's what makes it such a good observational study population; a whole bunch of variables are controlled away by default.)

Do your own research.

Hear me out. In my mind, there are so many reasonable and logical ways in which those studies can be manipulated and interpreted in a manner that goes a certain direction (that I'm distrustful of). The reason I'm there is that a lot of trust was lost over a long period of time and multiple instances. So a whole host of related side-issues need to be resolved and "proven" false with studies before I can get back to a high-trust zone with modern medicine when it comes to covid and other such "hot" topics.

I appreciate that loss of trust is real, happens fast, and takes longer to recover. Recovery itself demands some acceptance that not all evidence is unequivocal, or comprehensible.

Versus

>I can tell you now that honestly a good study won't convince me to trust the prevailing narrative.

You're not on the fence.

Covid and climate science denial can be strengthened by having a 'discussion'.

This is because conspiracy thinking is actually immune to evidence. The denialist will subvert your evidence in a way that it proves the conspiracy. In here they will probably complain that 'correlation is not causation' or some other methodology 101 trope, whereas the audience will think "oh, yeah, this is complicated, smart people are debating it, I guess the jury is still out and we don't know for certain if climate change is real or not, and the vaccines are not a silver bullet either, lets just wait until the debate is over'.

But, in fact, the debate is over.

So no, in this case the onus is one the person attacking a vast body of scientific literature proving beyond reasonable doubt that vaccines are effective to come up with something supporting those wild claims. It is not up to me to provide a literature list that nobody will ever read anyway, and anyone who is even remotely interested in finding the truth can google such a list in 5 min.

It would just be nice to get a finger pointing in a direction, not the middlefinger.

"Actual data from US prisons" took me about 20 seconds to find a reputable source for (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736396), likely less time than your comment asking for it took to type.

Do you really think that behavior will improve the knowledge gap?