3 ms·

How often are you going to repeat this nonsense? Vaccines have (with rare exceptions) never been 100% effective at preventing infection. Efficacy figures are gi

by fsh 4y ago

How often are you going to repeat this nonsense? Vaccines have (with rare exceptions) never been 100% effective at preventing infection. Efficacy figures are given in the information sheets for all commercial vaccines.

wellthatsawrap1 4y ago
- thedrbrian 4y ago
  Or sometimes even less https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizer-ceo-tests-positive-covid-2022-09-24/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
- fsh 4y ago
  Once again, this is simply not true and has never been. Here's a homework for you: Look up the efficacy figures in the information sheet of any standard vaccine. And then think about why many vaccines are given in multiple doses spread over a certain period of time.
- hrbf 4y ago
  Since when are vaccines or has any medical treatment been about “guarantees”?
KptMarchewa 4y ago
lixtra 4y ago
For measles the efficacy is apparently 97% [1]. What’s the number for Covid19? And why wasn’t it in the sheets when I was compelled to vaccinate? If I remember correctly the sheet back then stated that it may not protect against Covid19 at all. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/measles/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/measles/index.html
- fsh 4y ago
  Here are the numbers for COVID-19: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccine-effectiveness https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccine-effectiven... You probably received the vaccine before variants emerged. At the time, the clinical studies of the manufacturers showed very high efficacy against the ancestral strain which was confirmed in real-world data.
  - lixtra 4y ago
    When the mass vaccinations started alpha was already the dominant variant. When I was vaccinated it was clear that delta would matter most. So the vaccination for my age group was pretty pointless. Also you didn’t cite a number of efficacy. Clicking through the many cases I come up with something less than 40% (protection against infection) within a year. If you compare that with the 97% for lifetime (measles) you can understand the disappointment of the people and why they don’t want to call it a vaccine. The ancestral strain results were (naturally) also only of the kind: 95% protection for 3 months (or was the study period only 1 month?). Of course nobody could know for sure. But to many it was no surprise that the virus would escape any vaccine quickly just like the flu. OTOH: From all data I saw, I agree that the vaccine improved the chances of survival of the elderly.
    - fsh 4y ago
      Obviously the variants make the situation much more complicated, that's why I cited the overview page of the CDC. Please don't cherry-pick the lowest figure you could find, this is highly misleading. Even for adolescents and Omicron, the studies find a very robust reduction in severe disease and hospitalization.
      - lixtra 4y ago
        I’m not cherry picking the lowest number. You are shying away from giving a typical number. The 40% protection is actually much better then the anecdotal data I have. Two thirds of my vaccinated acquaintances fell sick with Covid19 in spite of vaccination. If you’re honest the page for measles could be just as confusing as the covid19 page. But CDC is confident to simplify it to a single number. But let’s assume that the Covid19 vaccines provides a solid 70% protection during the first year. That’s still ten times more people vulnerable than after the measles vaccination! The disappointment is justified. I thought meanwhile everyone agreed that the vaccines are very weak at providing sterile immunity?!
s_ting765 4y ago
Vaccines have always provided immunity from infection. I can't believe am even providing a source for this but in case you've been living in a bubble. The CDC did change the definition of the term vaccination to remove immunization on their website. [0] Compared to what they have up today. [1] Efficacy figures for covid vaccines were nothing but cooked-up gobbledygook. [2] [0]http://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.go... [1]https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm [2]https://www.science.org/content/article/astrazeneca-lowers-efficacy-claim-covid-19-vaccine-bit-after-boards-rebuke https://www.science.org/content/article/astrazeneca-lowers-e...

by fsh 4y ago

wellthatsawrap1 4y ago

thedrbrian 4y ago
Or sometimes even less https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizer-ceo-tests-positive-covid-2022-09-24/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
fsh 4y ago
Once again, this is simply not true and has never been. Here's a homework for you: Look up the efficacy figures in the information sheet of any standard vaccine. And then think about why many vaccines are given in multiple doses spread over a certain period of time.
hrbf 4y ago
Since when are vaccines or has any medical treatment been about “guarantees”?

KptMarchewa 4y ago

lixtra 4y ago

For measles the efficacy is apparently 97% [1]. What’s the number for Covid19? And why wasn’t it in the sheets when I was compelled to vaccinate? If I remember correctly the sheet back then stated that it may not protect against Covid19 at all. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/measles/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/measles/index.html

fsh 4y ago
Here are the numbers for COVID-19: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccine-effectiveness https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccine-effectiven... You probably received the vaccine before variants emerged. At the time, the clinical studies of the manufacturers showed very high efficacy against the ancestral strain which was confirmed in real-world data.
- lixtra 4y ago
  When the mass vaccinations started alpha was already the dominant variant. When I was vaccinated it was clear that delta would matter most. So the vaccination for my age group was pretty pointless. Also you didn’t cite a number of efficacy. Clicking through the many cases I come up with something less than 40% (protection against infection) within a year. If you compare that with the 97% for lifetime (measles) you can understand the disappointment of the people and why they don’t want to call it a vaccine. The ancestral strain results were (naturally) also only of the kind: 95% protection for 3 months (or was the study period only 1 month?). Of course nobody could know for sure. But to many it was no surprise that the virus would escape any vaccine quickly just like the flu. OTOH: From all data I saw, I agree that the vaccine improved the chances of survival of the elderly.
  - fsh 4y ago
    Obviously the variants make the situation much more complicated, that's why I cited the overview page of the CDC. Please don't cherry-pick the lowest figure you could find, this is highly misleading. Even for adolescents and Omicron, the studies find a very robust reduction in severe disease and hospitalization.
    - lixtra 4y ago
      I’m not cherry picking the lowest number. You are shying away from giving a typical number. The 40% protection is actually much better then the anecdotal data I have. Two thirds of my vaccinated acquaintances fell sick with Covid19 in spite of vaccination. If you’re honest the page for measles could be just as confusing as the covid19 page. But CDC is confident to simplify it to a single number. But let’s assume that the Covid19 vaccines provides a solid 70% protection during the first year. That’s still ten times more people vulnerable than after the measles vaccination! The disappointment is justified. I thought meanwhile everyone agreed that the vaccines are very weak at providing sterile immunity?!

s_ting765 4y ago

Vaccines have always provided immunity from infection. I can't believe am even providing a source for this but in case you've been living in a bubble. The CDC did change the definition of the term vaccination to remove immunization on their website. [0] Compared to what they have up today. [1] Efficacy figures for covid vaccines were nothing but cooked-up gobbledygook. [2] [0]http://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.go... [1]https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm [2]https://www.science.org/content/article/astrazeneca-lowers-efficacy-claim-covid-19-vaccine-bit-after-boards-rebuke https://www.science.org/content/article/astrazeneca-lowers-e...