[mortehu]

The author uses "evidence of infection" as the definition of infection, and labels all other definitions as misinformation, and writes at length about it as if it was not just a difference in definitions.

Obviously most of the people the author is criticizing are using "exposure that would cause detectable disease in non-immune individuals" as their definition, and I don't know if we have a better word for that.

[wizzwizz4]

> The author uses "evidence of infection" as the definition of infection,

So the author makes the implicit assumption that a successful vaccination doesn't prevent evidence of infection, and uses it to argue that vaccines are dangerous… then accuses everyone else of providing numbers without sufficient context?

Edit: no, actually.

> The reason, hidden in plain sight, is that a large number people who were never going to die, are no longer getting infected.

So the author does know… they were just getting spectacle in before explaining. And I do agree with the author's (eventual) point:

> Without careful control and understanding, one might erroneously conclude the Delta variant is is more lethal if you’ve been vaccinated, the vaccine is losing its efficacy, the vaccination is making people weaker, or some combination. While any of those are possible outcomes in this environment, by not being aware of the infection death rate issue from the start, because one is busy spreading misinformation about extra levels of protection that the data do not support, one misses how to properly control for these effects and analyze new data as it comes in.

But I really don't like the article. The author is the only one making those erroneous conclusions in the first place!