[briandon]

See https://www.covidvaccine.gov.hk/en/dashboard Scroll to "Vaccine Doses Administered (Age Group)" Click on "Population with 2nd Vaccine Dose" (under "Metrics")

Yes, you've linked a study.

I've shared a typical daily report of covid-attributed deaths and the victims' levels of vaccination and, as I told you, the vaccination levels of those who die of covid are as high or higher than the rates for their age groups.

[Faark]

I'm sure it will be quite easy for you to find data points indicating vaccines are bad. The reason i will nonetheless simply disregard your conclusions and stick to what to me seems to be the scientific consensus is, that it is very hard to actually overcome biases (like motivated reasoning) and the scientific process is the best we have to overcome those.

In other words, please link a study. Or something else i can trust actually wants to get at the bottom of this, not win some argument.

[briandon]

In recent years, you may have noticed that the scientific consensus around covid, starting at the beginning with lab leak vs. "seafood market" and continuing on to the present moment, changes frequently and drastically. Sometimes accompanied by revelations of fraud and dishonesty on the part of trusted public servants and domain experts. Congratulations to you on staving off psychological whiplash amidst all of the consensus-flipping.

If your response to being shown government-announced covid deaths with details of the vaccination levels of the deceased (available on a daily basis from that and other news outlets) and, for comparison, age-bracketed vaccination levels reported by the same government is that you want to be shown a study, then I suspect what you truly want is reassurance or reaffirmation of your current set of beliefs rather than a grasp of what's currently going on.

[Faark]

Ofc consensus changes. Based on new data. That's how it is supposed to work.

> If your response to being shown government-announced covid deaths [..]

Well, that's what you are trying to promote. That you linked some raw data, not a conclusion-statement from this government, is all i need to know. I'm not calling you a liar. I just assume there to be another angle you might be missing (the motivated reasoning part), but this is something for experts in the respective area. And if not, it will change consensus accordingly. Unless, ofc, you believe in some grad conspiracy of all the governments all around the world. I don't.