I would say that it depends entirely on how much evidence is available and what the claim is.  Claims that 2000 soldiers are disabled per-day should require zero research to know that's complete BS.

 For instance when the vaccine was claimed to "stop the spread" before it was injected into any human that was not part of a closed trial, then that claim would be, to me, inconclusive.  No data exists to prove yes or no.

 I disagreed, or did "not agree" with that claim after 23.846% of verified vaccinated humans with verified contact tracing indicated they had a probability of 51% or more that they passed Covid to another human that was verified to be infected.  This percentage was calculated against the odds of pure chance, contagion transfer averages in each region and the previous rates of error in the 4 systems used to collect said data.

 The primary thing here is the "proof" is not any random statement found on the internet, or articles that I refuse to read, (instead just accepting the headline as fact because I like where it came from).  Verified humans with actual lab tests would be my primary source of "proof" for the claim that the vaccine "stops the spread".  Not Facebook, Not CNN, Not FOX, Not The Gateway Pundit.

 The percentage values of what I would require to disagree, or "not agree" with a statement varies.  If somebody claims C-19 killed 8 million kids in one year, I would not need the mortality statistics of every state in the Union, but only the mortality statistics of 3 states or 6%.  This primarily relies on the fact that children dying at a rate of 15 kids every minute for an entire year could not possibly go by unnoticed.  

 A funeral home operator saying he bought 500 coffins, while refusing to provide purchase orders or receipts, (Raw Data) from Costco would not be "proof" of more dead kids.  Empty coffins are not equal to dead bodies.  The "proof" is actual death certificates, families having funerals, school memorials or otherwise acknowledging a kid is no longer in existence in interactive physical form on Earth.  

 I can't recall how we calculated the reliability of pediatric death claims but I know the required percentage needed to exceed previous years, chance, and error was under 1%.  So for that level of "proof" on that specific topic, the percentage increase would be rather low if examined from a 1 - 100% scale assessment, but that same number would be high if examined against previous years mortality rates.

 

When it was 'claimed', the vaccine could stop the spread before it was injected.

The answer of, "...No data exists to prove yes or no....", means that because no 'study said' it is true, and no study said it was false.

And the, 'Observed Reality', of the FALSE statement, 'vaccine could stop the spread before it was injected', is not proof.


 "Data" to me means factual information instead of opinion.  You may think the word "data" requires a "study" to "say" something.  I do not.  

 There is no requirement for a study to say anything in the example you provide since your example is prior to an event happening.  When the claim is made prior to implementation, then no evidence of any kind exists.  So no data, study, or Observed Reality can exist, thus no "proof" exists.

 My examples here do not require a study to say anything either.  My example involves research don't by me and my business, cross referenced with other sources, including Observations that can be verified.  Like funerals, actual dead bodies, or certificates of death, or missing kids, or school district enrollments, or summer camp memorials, or Church Newsletters, or statements from their families for instance.




And the, 'Observed Reality', of the FALSE statement, 'vaccine could stop the spread before it was injected', is not proof.

 It has proof, but you are comparing "proof" of two different things.  

 The above sentence is Observing a FALSE statement.  The statement itself is FALSE because it defies time and space - it indicates a statement was made that a vaccine could "stop the spread before it was injected".  Also no medication on record has ever been able to do that.

 The claim that it was ever made would be the challenge to Observed Reality in this context.  But if proof exists by means of data - or verifiable digital record - that the statement was made then the Observed Reality can be proven to be accurate.

 If someone said their Observed reality is that the statement "Geese fly south." was made by a specific human, the only evidence is the claim.  No proof exists.  Additional information, not exclusive to a study, would be required for there to be "proof".

 Of course one can choose not to Observe the words in these posts at all so none of this is part of their Observed Reality so later they can claim we never said things that we actually did.  Or maybe they never clicked on this post, so it wasn't Observed and thus not part of their Observed Reality, so this conversation never happened.