You are correct to disagree and for many more reasons than you listed
[QUOTE=DontSayMuch;2693049]I disagree with your take on the conclusions in the study[/QUOTE]The paper was not designed to make the points for which the anti-vaxers are attempting to use it. The paper was specifically looking at all-cause benefits in the adenovirus-vector arm, hence the title, "Do adenovirus-vector vaccines have beneficial non-specific effects"? Although I have a feeling the authors formed the title after they analyzed their results which isn't Kosher if operating under the pure scientific method where the premise should have been based on a null hypothesis.
The authors feel they proved the benefit in their title. I can't find enough fault with their preliminary findings to say further study is not warranted.
In fact, overall the paper is a "plus" or a win for supporting vaccination because the adenovirus-vector arm showed a clear, statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality.
The Original Poster (OP) commits one of the classic, all-time pitfalls when he poses an argument or evidence that actually supports the opposite viewpoint. Comical, really, and I never cease to be amazed at this how common this intellectual blunder occurs.
You are correct to point out that the death numbers are very small which makes all conclusions suspect, especially considering that data collection was taken from multiple trials with different methodologies, one of the inherent weaknesses in all Review Papers. Did you notice the authors resorted to calling the authors of the original papers to figure out who died from what? While I admire that tenacity, that speaks volumes to the tenuous nature of the data.
That there was not a reduction in overall mortality in the mRNA arm of the study (code for Pfizer and Moderna) is not a surprise. The majority of the individuals in the trials were healthy volunteers. In real-life, COVID-19 vaccines are administered to highly vulnerable populations with high COVID-19-dependent mortalities. The "real world" outcomes are probably significantly different, and I expect would show such a reduction.
In spite of these limitations, the authors concluded that all the vaccines, including Pfizer and Moderna were associated with a lower risk of Covid-19 death, a point that seems to have been lost by the anti-vaxers.
No matter what side of the fence you are on, it only hurts your cause when you take an original scientific research paper that shows the opposite of your beliefs, and then try to co-opt and warp the results to support your viewpoint. That is intellectual laziness caused my emotional zealousness, and creates an instant loss of credibility.
I will not respond to any additional additional posts about this unless by some minor miracle, someone here for the first time has something more advanced to say compared to the sum total of all the prior posts here on Covid. I don't even know why I submit myself to this extra energy other than I think it's intellectual heresy to make the kind of uninformed conclusions the OP made from this paper.
DontSayMuch ShouldSayMore because he is the first person I have seen her in a long time who knows how to think critically without an obvious unfounded bias.
I have no axe to grind. Everything I have predicted about Covid so far has come true. The vaccines are medically becoming a moot point, and all restrictions are easing up. Let's hope a new more virulent strain doesn't pop up somewhere.
Don't try to engage me on these issues. I will not choose to waste my time like that. This post is just about the paper and its misinterpretation.
If I were one of the original journal reviewers who decided whether or not the paper gets published, which was one of the many hats I wore, I would have said the paper was in need of a major rewrite and reorganization before publication.