"Oxford Covid vaccine hit 90% success rate thanks to dosing error"

@humy said
correct, and which I agreed with and didn't deny and is completely irrelevant to anything I claimed. This is yet another of your current stupid straw mans that convinces nobody here.

Where is the herd immunity?

An irrelevant question as you clearly weren't talking about herd immunity when you falsely claimed;

"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immun ...[text shortened]... nd showed no evidence that what my links claimed is wrong. All you have is your usual BS straw mans.

You are lying about my quote. Here is what I said:

"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity from the virus."

You purposely omitted "from the virus".

@metal-brain said
You are lying about my quote. Here is what I said:

"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity from the virus."

You purposely omitted "from the virus".

Nope. That was a latter comment you made.
Here is the earlier comment of yours which is the one I keep quoting and which is still to be clearly seen on page 4 (start of the second post from the bottom of page 4) of this thread before you made that later above comment on page 5 of this thread;

"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity. "

Note there is a full stop at the end of the word "immunity" and there is no "from the virus." comment appended to that.
So it is you that is lying yet again and fool nobody here.
And there is no way for you to worm your way out of the fact you have been shown to have asserted that above false claim which my links proved false, which wouldn't by itself be a problem if you only was decent and honest enough to admit when you are wrong, but of course we all know you never are decent and honest enough to admit when you are wrong and instead respond by lying by accuse me of being a liar, which I never am on these forums. Its only you that is a liar here.

@humy said
Nope. That was a latter comment you made.
Here is the earlier comment of yours which is the one I keep quoting and which is still to be clearly seen on page 4 (start of the second post from the bottom of page 4) of this thread before you made that later above comment on page 5 of this thread;

"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity. "

Note there is a full stop ...[text shortened]... ng by accuse me of being a liar, which I never am on these forums. Its only you that is a liar here.

You omitted the entire quote in an effort to mislead. This is the full quote:

"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity. I'm not even sure they should call it a vaccine. It does not prevent people from getting the SARS2 virus."

I was clearly referring to the virus, not the symptoms. There will be no herd immunity from the Pfizer vaccine. Covid 19 is NOT a virus.

@metal-brain said
You omitted the entire quote in an effort to mislead. This is the full quote:

"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity. I'm not even sure they should call it a vaccine. It does not prevent people from getting the SARS2 virus."

I was clearly referring to the virus, not the symptoms.

No, you weren't clearly referring to the virus in that first assertion. If you were, why didn't you say there something like "There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity from the virus. I don't mean immunity from the symptoms of the virus, I mean from catching and spreading virus itself ragardless of whether you show symptoms" so that I could tell what you meant from you first statement and I could tell you didn't mean the symptoms of the virus rather than the virus itself in the second statement? Was it so you could then backtrack later if I proved your first assertion wrong? I would think yes, it was, because trolling is what you do best. It is you who is being misleading; and deliberately so.

Obviously, in every day English, even when somebody says "immunity from the virus", they normally mean by default "immunity from the disease the virus can cause". That much is obvious because it is obviously usually immunity from the disease people are really interested in for obvious reasons. You obviously just deliberately chose to use a non-default meaning of that phrase to deliberately cause confusion purely for the purposes of trolling via dishonesty.

And the fact remains the assertion by itself of;
"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity"
is false and, despite your denials, I proved it is false.
Here is that proof yet again;


https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/10/1013914/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-chart-covid-19/
"...After two weeks, hardly anyone with the vaccine was getting covid-19. But the disease kept striking those who got the placebo with clockwork regularity...."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8
"...Scientists welcome the first compelling evidence that a vaccine can prevent Covid 19 . ..."

@humy said
No, you weren't clearly referring to the virus in that first assertion. If you were, why didn't you say there something like "There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity from the virus. I don't mean immunity from the symptoms of the virus, I mean from catching and spreading virus itself ragardless of whether you show symptoms" so that I could tell what you meant from you ...[text shortened]... ..Scientists welcome the first compelling evidence that a vaccine can prevent Covid 19 . ..."

You are dishonest and everyone can see that.
I already mopped the floor with you. I'm done with you.