So are you disputing the reporting accuracy or disputing the research?
Only your interpretation of the so called "reporting" part.
So, my point was that there is very substantial protection a couple weeks after the first shot, is that what you have the problem with
Did I not indicate there is 80% protection? The only problem is your reading comprehension. At least I didn't throw in T cells into the discussion. That would have totally confused you. Which leads to...
I prefer to see a preponderance of research to spending a lot of time reading repetitive papers... or have you read something else credible you can point to?
Let me get this straight. You want a "reporting" source, because you are not interested or able to read the scientific journal articles with comprehension. Then you ask me for a half dozen references to journal articles, as "something else credible". Geesh. Go pick your bone elsewhere.