2 ms·

I'm not a partisan, so I won't charge you with blasphemy. :) However... > don’t prevent transmission much at all Where does this come from? I'd previously hea

I'm not a partisan, so I won't charge you with blasphemy. :) However... > don’t prevent transmission much at all Where does this come from? I'd previously heard that these vaccines do a pretty good job of curbing transmission. Or rather, a number like 30% efficacy (of preventing transmission) is really good for vaccines.

lambdaba 5y ago
I'm not sure this is the right number. I have read the initial results for one of the vaccines (I think it was from Pfizer) and with my, admittedly cursory and layman reading of the data, the reduction of transmission in vaccinated vs unvaccinated households wasn't at all dramatic, something like 1.5x for some cohorts. And this was with "freshly" vaccinated, post 2 weeks after vaccination (remember, 2 weeks post vaccination susceptibility to infection is increased).
dmajirb 5y ago
> 30% efficacy (of preventing transmission) is really good for vaccines. Seriously? If you were to double that number, such a poor efficacy rate (e.g. 60%) would not even be worthy of classification as a “vaccine” per standards prior to 2019. Truth is this drug should never have been classified as a “vaccine” in the first place, but scientific standards took the backseat as fear and panic overruled. The need for having a “vaccine solution” was so paramount that we turned a blind eye to any red flags and crucified anyone who pointed out the obviously concerning facts about the Covid vaccine solution such as 1/ it was developed in less than a week, 2/ development was led by a company with zero prior successful products launched ever, 3/ used technology never been used at scale (let alone universally) 4/ all profit-driven biotech/pharma companies willing to participate were offered free money AND complete protection from ANY liability resulting from the ‘vac’ granted by .gov.

lambdaba 5y ago

I'm not sure this is the right number. I have read the initial results for one of the vaccines (I think it was from Pfizer) and with my, admittedly cursory and layman reading of the data, the reduction of transmission in vaccinated vs unvaccinated households wasn't at all dramatic, something like 1.5x for some cohorts. And this was with "freshly" vaccinated, post 2 weeks after vaccination (remember, 2 weeks post vaccination susceptibility to infection is increased).

dmajirb 5y ago

> 30% efficacy (of preventing transmission) is really good for vaccines. Seriously? If you were to double that number, such a poor efficacy rate (e.g. 60%) would not even be worthy of classification as a “vaccine” per standards prior to 2019. Truth is this drug should never have been classified as a “vaccine” in the first place, but scientific standards took the backseat as fear and panic overruled. The need for having a “vaccine solution” was so paramount that we turned a blind eye to any red flags and crucified anyone who pointed out the obviously concerning facts about the Covid vaccine solution such as 1/ it was developed in less than a week, 2/ development was led by a company with zero prior successful products launched ever, 3/ used technology never been used at scale (let alone universally) 4/ all profit-driven biotech/pharma companies willing to participate were offered free money AND complete protection from ANY liability resulting from the ‘vac’ granted by .gov.