Thread 16818873

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.01.30.25321421v3

43857 (82.1%) had received the influenza vaccine by the end of the study. Influenza occurred in 1079 (2.02%) during the study. The cumulative incidence of influenza was similar for the vaccinated and unvaccinated states early, but over the course of the study the cumulative incidence of influenza increased more rapidly among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, clinical nursing job, and employment location, the risk of influenza was significantly higher for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated state (HR, 1.27; 95% C.I., 1.07 – 1.51; P = 0.007), yielding a calculated vaccine effectiveness of −26.9% (95% C.I., −55.0 to −6.6%).

>>16818873 (OP)
It's 2025 and people still post "studies" on the science board.

>>16818873 (OP)
just take chlorine dioxide instead

>>16818873 (OP)
fake study made by chuds

>>16818873 (OP)
>In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, clinical nursing job, and employment location
Even though I don't get the flu shots and do find the annual push for them to be somewhat overbearing, I do wonder if there's a hidden variable somewhere.

>>16818873 (OP)
>influenza vaccine
It's not a vaccine. It doesn't confer immunity. Stop using the post-2020 fake definition. For years it was called a flu shot for that specific reason.

>>16819194
why do you presume there is a hidden variable when there is no evidence one exists

>>16819520
The world is full of variables. Sorry to sound glib but the epidemiological model is just that, a model. In this case, it's a model that only accounts for four variables (five if you include vaccination status). Doubt that's the entirety of variables that factor into infection.

>>16819676
>Doubt that's the entirety of variables that factor into infection.
you have no basis for that doubt, so why do you presume there is a hidden variable when there is no evidence one exists?
do you have some sort of emotional reason that explains your baseless prejudice?