4 ms·

>It is now obvious that the vaccines do not prevent covid. For the record, that was obvious when the vaccines were released, as the trial results for vaccine e

>It is now obvious that the vaccines do not prevent covid. For the record, that was obvious when the vaccines were released, as the trial results for vaccine effectiveness against infection for all the vaccines were clearly and widely reported to be significantly less than 100%. I think you may be referring to the lower effectiveness against new variants, which, again, was always reported as a possibility even before variants started appearing.

parkingrift 5y ago
Pfizer and BioNTech concluded their phase 3 study and reported their vaccine to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose.[0] This was widely reported in the American and worldwide media.[3][4][5][6] Fauci said the results were "extraordinary" and would "have a major impact on everything that we do with regard to COVID."[1] >For the record, that was obvious when the vaccines were released It doesn't seem obvious to me at all. Seems like an outright retelling of history. You should do a search for the period of November 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021 on this topic. [0]: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-pfizer-vaccine-90-percent-efficacy-rate-extraordinary-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-pfizer-vaccine-90-perc... [3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/11/09/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-effective/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/11/09/pfizer-coro... [4]: https://theconversation.com/pfizer-vaccine-what-an-efficacy-rate-above-90-really-means-149849 https://theconversation.com/pfizer-vaccine-what-an-efficacy-... [5]: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54986208 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54986208 [6]: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/09/933006651/pfizer-says-experimental-covid-19-vaccine-is-more-than-90-effective https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/09/9330066...
- vannevar 5y ago
  The difference between a zero chance of infection and a 1 in 20 chance is obvious to me, and I would hope, to most people. I'd be happy to offer you a 0% chance at winning $1000 from me in exchange for a 5% chance of winning $1000 from you. I'll even pay you $5. ;-)
  - parkingrift 5y ago
    Make an argument and stick to it. You said… > as the trial results for vaccine effectiveness against infection for all the vaccines were clearly and widely reported to be significantly less than 100% This is not true. Now you’re saying… I don’t know what you’re trying to say. That you understand basic arithmetic, but don’t understand how vaccine efficacy and herd immunity works?
    - vannevar 5y ago
      > as the trial results for vaccine effectiveness against infection for all the vaccines were clearly and widely reported to be significantly less than 100% > This is not true. It is absolutely true. The difference between 0% and 5% is enormous, as I tried to illustrate with my example. Let me try again. If your doctor told you there was a 0% chance you have cancer vs a 5% chance, you would behave very differently, correct?

parkingrift 5y ago

Pfizer and BioNTech concluded their phase 3 study and reported their vaccine to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose.[0] This was widely reported in the American and worldwide media.[3][4][5][6] Fauci said the results were "extraordinary" and would "have a major impact on everything that we do with regard to COVID."[1] >For the record, that was obvious when the vaccines were released It doesn't seem obvious to me at all. Seems like an outright retelling of history. You should do a search for the period of November 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021 on this topic. [0]: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-pfizer-vaccine-90-percent-efficacy-rate-extraordinary-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-pfizer-vaccine-90-perc... [3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/11/09/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-effective/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/11/09/pfizer-coro... [4]: https://theconversation.com/pfizer-vaccine-what-an-efficacy-rate-above-90-really-means-149849 https://theconversation.com/pfizer-vaccine-what-an-efficacy-... [5]: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54986208 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54986208 [6]: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/09/933006651/pfizer-says-experimental-covid-19-vaccine-is-more-than-90-effective https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/09/9330066...

vannevar 5y ago
The difference between a zero chance of infection and a 1 in 20 chance is obvious to me, and I would hope, to most people. I'd be happy to offer you a 0% chance at winning $1000 from me in exchange for a 5% chance of winning $1000 from you. I'll even pay you $5. ;-)
- parkingrift 5y ago
  Make an argument and stick to it. You said… > as the trial results for vaccine effectiveness against infection for all the vaccines were clearly and widely reported to be significantly less than 100% This is not true. Now you’re saying… I don’t know what you’re trying to say. That you understand basic arithmetic, but don’t understand how vaccine efficacy and herd immunity works?
  - vannevar 5y ago
    > as the trial results for vaccine effectiveness against infection for all the vaccines were clearly and widely reported to be significantly less than 100% > This is not true. It is absolutely true. The difference between 0% and 5% is enormous, as I tried to illustrate with my example. Let me try again. If your doctor told you there was a 0% chance you have cancer vs a 5% chance, you would behave very differently, correct?