3 ms·
My understanding was that they were supposed to be effective in preventing hospitalisation, not infection.
by hndamien 5y ago
My understanding was that they were supposed to be effective in preventing hospitalisation, not infection.
- angelzen 5y agoThere is a worrying strain of scapegoating lurking around, asserting that unvaxxed are infecting us all, and/or are a reservoir of dangerous mutations. There are ruthless politicians perpetuating such messaging and enacting discriminatory policies based on vaxx/unvaxxed status. If the UK data shows that vaxx/unvaxx makes little difference in infection rates, then the scapegoating is Not Good.
- LifeIsThermal 5y agoThe 95% efficacy for Pfizer was for infection prevention. Hospitalisation in younger than 65 is extremely rare, so in this group the vaccine have practically no effect. The data from Israel even indicates a slightly higher rate of hospitalisation among vaccinated in this group. At least that was the case a couple of months ago.
- angelzen 5y agoThe UK report also says on page 6: "With the delta variant, vaccine effectiveness against infection has been estimated at around 65% with Vaxzevria and 80% with Comirnaty" which corroborates with your information, 80% vs 95% but same ballpark. And yet their data later in the report seems to contradict the vaccine effectiveness against infection numbers. They seem to know what they are talking about, I wish they had addressed this apparent contradiction in the report itself.