Did you just post the Fisman fictitious computer modeling that had zero observational data? LOL
Your fictitious article:
DISCLAIMER:The simplicity of our model is a weakness, because it does not precisely simulate a real-world pandemic process in all its complexity.
It’s all a simulation, it’s based of hypothesis and suppositions and not reproducible.
I feel sorry for you. You just can’t stop failing.
"The simplicity of our model is both a strength (it is transparent
and easily modified to explore the impact of uncertainty) and a
weakness, because it does not precisely simulate a real-world
pandemic process in all its complexity. For instance, we mod-
elled vaccine effectiveness against infection but not the addi-
tional benefits of vaccination for preventing severe illness.
Although this benefit is not captured by a simple model focused
on transmission, an advantage of models such as ours is that
they provide a ready platform for layering on increasing com-
plexity, so our model can be adapted or expanded to consider
impacts on the health system, or to incorporate additional struc-
tural elements or alternate assumptions. We have also likely
underestimated vaccine benefit in this model, as we have not
attempted to capture the impact of vaccines on prevention of
forward transmission by vaccinated, infected individuals; this
effect appears to be substantial.4"
this computer model is what you’re claiming proves the vaccine is not a failure
That and the public records that show unvaccinated people are more likely to wind up in a hospital or ICU bed.
Like this one from California: May 27, 2022 "From May 2, 2022 to May 8, 2022, unvaccinated people were 4.8 times more likely to get COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose." https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/
Did you just post the Fisman fictitious computer modeling that had zero observational data? LOL
Your fictitious article:
DISCLAIMER: The simplicity of our model is a weakness, because it does not precisely simulate a real-world pandemic process in all its complexity. It’s all a simulation, it’s based of hypothesis and suppositions and not reproducible.
I feel sorry for you. You just can’t stop failing.
Someone needs to show you how to quote correctly.
"The simplicity of our model is both a strength (it is transparent and easily modified to explore the impact of uncertainty) and a weakness, because it does not precisely simulate a real-world pandemic process in all its complexity. For instance, we mod- elled vaccine effectiveness against infection but not the addi- tional benefits of vaccination for preventing severe illness. Although this benefit is not captured by a simple model focused on transmission, an advantage of models such as ours is that they provide a ready platform for layering on increasing com- plexity, so our model can be adapted or expanded to consider impacts on the health system, or to incorporate additional struc- tural elements or alternate assumptions. We have also likely underestimated vaccine benefit in this model, as we have not attempted to capture the impact of vaccines on prevention of forward transmission by vaccinated, infected individuals; this effect appears to be substantial.4"
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/194/16/E573.full.pdf
Exactly it’s a fictional computer model.
Cannot be reproduced.
And this computer model is what you’re claiming proves the vaccine is not a failure
That and the public records that show unvaccinated people are more likely to wind up in a hospital or ICU bed.
Like this one from California: May 27, 2022 "From May 2, 2022 to May 8, 2022, unvaccinated people were 4.8 times more likely to get COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose." https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/