If people were getting vaccinated as soon as they could, in the US, for many people the circulating variants were different by the time you needed to get your fourth booster. It became more clear that we needed a bivalent booster, but it wasn't quite out yet.

My guess is that it wasn't that it wasn't effective, just less effective than an updated one would be.

Eating well and exercising protects your heart. COVID causes a lot of clotting. It might just be that people with healthy hearts are better able to handle the stress on the body than people whose hearts are already stressed.

There hasn't been a ton of recent testing of the smallpox vaccine. We don't have smallpox challenge trials for example.

Smallpox immunity wanes after vaccination, but still can prevent infection and severe infection.

https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/7022/

Part of what makes the smallpox vaccine effective, is that smallpox is not circulating in the population and mutating. Smallpox is also a DNA virus, and DNA viruses tend to have fewer mutations, so vaccines continue to work for them, rather than the flu which is RNA and mutates like crazy. It's probably most effective to think about the antigen that the vaccine is training your body to target, and the delivery mechanism for that.

mRNA vaccines are really going to change the vaccine landscape.

I'm not the poster you were responding to, but my guess is that when you clear cut you're doing something more close to primary succession.

Because nothing is established yet, there might be an opportunity for some bigger species to get established, whereas if you cut down the old growth, the shorter canopies can block sunlight to the ground and you might never get the big trees.

After guessing I did some googling

Anti-clear cutting https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/compass/2020/07/16/past-partial-cutting-techniques-more-beneficial-than-past-clear-cutting/

"Pro" clear cutting https://www.stillwaterforestry.com/forestry/a-selective-cut-that-is-worse-than-a-clear-cut.php

Honestly I should have googled before trying to come up with an explanation. There is very little information on the internet in favor of clear cutting. Though I do think the article does a good job of explaining why there are diminishing returns for selective cuts.

The fundamental truths are all based on linguistics and your definitions of the things you're measuring, and then the science of the measuring tools and strategy.

There are so many flaws in all of our rodent experimentation. Sexism in medicine, what about a foundation of basic biology built mainly on studying male rodents and then extrapolating to humans.

Even physics when you get down to it ends up being an existential debate about the nature of the universe.And the more we discover, the weirder things get.

There was a paper recently where the title mentioned adolescents, but didn't specify that the experiment was on adolescent rodents.

I think titles would be a step in the right direction, but when there's a financial stake in flashy headlines.. it's a losing game

To what end?

Hibernate through your prison sentence and then come back when people have forgotten?

The calculation that they did, to get the odds ratios, the alcohol is the exposure. It's just an association, not demonstrated cause and effect.