3 ms·
Wrong on all accounts. The early communication about the vaccine was all about preventing infections. You are trying to rewrite History. Back in 2020, press re
by ekianjo 4y ago
Wrong on all accounts. The early communication about the vaccine was all about preventing infections. You are trying to rewrite History.
Back in 2020, press release from Pfizer:
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...
> "Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose;170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics; observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%"
- etchalon 4y agoWhat you're showing is that the early data showed a high degree of efficacy against an earlier variant. And 95% isn't 100%.
- ekianjo 4y agoEven with the earlier variants the actual clinical data on the market never achieved 95%. Pure hyperbole and Pfizer has still not shared the actual raw data of the trials.
- sovnade 4y agoIt was extremely effective against preventing infection (and transmission). The press release you posted said as much. But everything I heard at the time was that it was 100% effective at preventing severe infections (including hospitalizations and death), and that you were much, much less likely to have symptoms at all should you contract it.