3 ms·

There was data to suggest that. The data that suggested that was linked in the article you posted: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm

• yucky 4y ago
  From your link "Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization" Does 90% equal 100% now? Her statement was false, even based on the limited data set you're referencing. It's even more false now.
  • etchalon 4y ago
    People sometimes speak in hyperbole as a point of emphasis. Behold, humanity.
    • yucky 4y ago
      If we can now expect the leading health experts in the world to be potentially speaking in hyperbole, then we can't expect the public to trust what they say to be accurate. That's a problem.
      • etchalon 4y ago
        If you take someone casually rounding up from 90% to 100% as a deep reason for concern, I have some bad news for you regarding weather forecasts.
        • yucky 4y ago
          No expert in any field would tell you that "casually rounding from 90% to 100%" should ever be done in any serious setting. Ever. Idiots on the Internet are free to do so, but not the Director of the CDC or the US President. That gets people killed.
          • lern_too_spel 4y ago
            Surely, you can't be serious. The setting isn't a paper but a news interview, where they want the general idea of a study, not the details. In a news interview, saying "people who smoke get cancer" is perfectly acceptable (and not likely to "get people killed"), even though not 100% of them do.