Did you? He specifically mentions negative effecasy, around 4 mins 30 seconds on .
Here's why paying attention and being educated enough to be able to read a graph are so important.
He "mentions" negative efficacy, then shows a series of graphs by age cohort. On ONE graph, ONE cohort only (the
oldest) shows a larger percentage of vaccinated people getting Covid than the unvaccinated. He (and you) run with this to say that there is nEgaTiVe eFfICaCy over time for the vaccine as such, when the graph shows that there might be negative efficacy for a single cohort. What he doesn't address (that is, what a real scientist would ask) is 1) is the difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups statically significant for this particular cohort? and 2) why would the graph look like this ONLY for this cohort? Hmmm. Why only for that cohort? Why do you suppose the vaccine would work differently for this one group?
We don't get to see the numbers behind the graph. Since we know that Covid is most virulent with the most elderly (something you talk about) and since the vaccination push has specifically targeted these people the most, maybe the number of unvaccinated elderly is particularly small relative the the vaccinated since more of them have already died of the disease.
Your "scientist" also doesn't address the fact that the virus mutates (quickly) over time and that the vaccine (like ALL vaccines) has to catch up with the mutations.
You need a new tin hat. FAIL.
