4 ms·

You're confusing efficacy against severe disease, which this study proved, and efficacy against death, which this study did not prove.

• vannevar 5y ago
  No, I'm not. Clinically, severe disease is (and was known to be at the time of the study) a pre-requisite for death. We don't see people with mild covid dropping dead. The study saw only 2 severe cases among the vaccinated and 106 in the unvaccinated. Coupled with the rarity of negative reactions to the vaccine, the researchers were justified in saying that the study proved that the vaccine would prevent death. Experience has proven them correct, as death rates among the unvaccinated are much higher than the vaccinated.
  • lkbm 5y ago
    Ah, that's a good point. The limited death data itself was (I assume) not significant, but we don't need it to be given the size of the effect earlier in the "conversion funnel".
    • peteradio 5y ago
      It's a bad argument, it implicitly assumes you know only severe COVID-19 can lead to death. You cannot say this study proved lower incidence of all cause death. You would have to extrapolate via some model of disease transmission. Once you get to that point you ought to get more imaginative than vaccine vaccine vaccine. It's a slick argument though, very "these aren't the droids you are looking for"