3 ms·

CDC says Polio is "99 - 100 % effective" against paralytic polio [0]. So essentially perfect efficacy. Covid vaccines look like a failure in comparison (<60% ef

CDC says Polio is "99 - 100 % effective" against paralytic polio [0]. So essentially perfect efficacy. Covid vaccines look like a failure in comparison (<60% effective against hospitalization, much more significant harms)[1] To me the problem wasn't that the vaccines didn't perfectly to prevent infection and transmission; the problem is that the messaging from the medical field was that the vaccine _would_ prevent transmission and harmful reactions would be rare. No matter how much one squints, neither of those look remotely true. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-dur... [1] https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-compariso...

Timon3 3y ago
> CDC says Polio is "99 - 100 % effective" against paralytic polio [0]. So essentially perfect efficacy. Covid vaccines look like a failure in comparison (<60% effective against hospitalization, much more significant harms)[1] You're using an arbitrary delineation which the parent didn't. "Essentially perfect" is imperfect, just like the Covid vaccines - because the measure wasn't "more than 99% effective", it's "100% effective". > To me the problem wasn't that the vaccines didn't perfectly to prevent infection and transmission; the problem is that the messaging from the medical field was that the vaccine _would_ prevent transmission and harmful reactions would be rare. No matter how much one squints, neither of those look remotely true. When and by who was this messaging put out? The Covid vaccines are pretty darn good at protecting you - but only from the original strains, they're not good at protecting from mutated strains. You need updated shots for that, by which time the virus has mutated further.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I’m not implying that the numbers I choose are the best to use, but I think they are a fair indication of a vaccine that is very effective vs one that is marginally effective. If you have some numbers that are less arbitrary, I’m open to new info to change my mind. During the pandemic most health institutions were being really optimistic in their messaging about the vaccines. I guess it’s just semantics, but I don’t think you can say a vaccine is darn good then say the virus mutates too fast for the vaccine to be effective long-term. Aren’t those things in opposition?
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > I’m not implying that the numbers I choose are the best to use, but I think they are a fair indication of a vaccine that is very effective vs one that is marginally effective. If you have some numbers that are less arbitrary, I’m open to new info to change my mind. I don't think that any specific number is a good delineation between "ineffective" and "effective". I fundamentally disagree that the Covid vaccines are ineffective. The only way to call them ineffective is to use a delineation which no vaccine survives. > During the pandemic most health institutions were being really optimistic in their messaging about the vaccines. I guess it’s just semantics, but I don’t think you can say a vaccine is darn good then say the virus mutates too fast for the vaccine to be effective long-term. Aren’t those things in opposition? No, they are not in opposition. You left out the important part: the vaccines are darn good against the original virus. They are still sorta good for mutations.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      Without a delineation, how do you argue that it is effective? How how do you argue that any treatment is effective if not statistics like these? And it’s not fair to say no vaccine survives this delineation because I specifically used Polio as an example of an effective vaccine.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        There isn't a magical number which means the vaccine is effective, and below that number it is ineffective. A vaccine is effective if it helps people deal with a virus (i.e. lowering chance of hospitalisation/death). It doesn't magically become ineffective because it doesn't meet an arbitrary percentage of prevented cases. The Polio vaccine is "only" 99-100% effective. That means that it's not 100% effective (as in, there are cases where it doesn't prevent transmission/infection). According to the criterium laid out by GP this means it is an ineffective vaccine, just like the Covid vaccine.

Timon3 3y ago

> CDC says Polio is "99 - 100 % effective" against paralytic polio [0]. So essentially perfect efficacy. Covid vaccines look like a failure in comparison (<60% effective against hospitalization, much more significant harms)[1] You're using an arbitrary delineation which the parent didn't. "Essentially perfect" is imperfect, just like the Covid vaccines - because the measure wasn't "more than 99% effective", it's "100% effective". > To me the problem wasn't that the vaccines didn't perfectly to prevent infection and transmission; the problem is that the messaging from the medical field was that the vaccine _would_ prevent transmission and harmful reactions would be rare. No matter how much one squints, neither of those look remotely true. When and by who was this messaging put out? The Covid vaccines are pretty darn good at protecting you - but only from the original strains, they're not good at protecting from mutated strains. You need updated shots for that, by which time the virus has mutated further.

brutusborn 3y ago
I’m not implying that the numbers I choose are the best to use, but I think they are a fair indication of a vaccine that is very effective vs one that is marginally effective. If you have some numbers that are less arbitrary, I’m open to new info to change my mind. During the pandemic most health institutions were being really optimistic in their messaging about the vaccines. I guess it’s just semantics, but I don’t think you can say a vaccine is darn good then say the virus mutates too fast for the vaccine to be effective long-term. Aren’t those things in opposition?
- Timon3 3y ago
  > I’m not implying that the numbers I choose are the best to use, but I think they are a fair indication of a vaccine that is very effective vs one that is marginally effective. If you have some numbers that are less arbitrary, I’m open to new info to change my mind. I don't think that any specific number is a good delineation between "ineffective" and "effective". I fundamentally disagree that the Covid vaccines are ineffective. The only way to call them ineffective is to use a delineation which no vaccine survives. > During the pandemic most health institutions were being really optimistic in their messaging about the vaccines. I guess it’s just semantics, but I don’t think you can say a vaccine is darn good then say the virus mutates too fast for the vaccine to be effective long-term. Aren’t those things in opposition? No, they are not in opposition. You left out the important part: the vaccines are darn good against the original virus. They are still sorta good for mutations.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    Without a delineation, how do you argue that it is effective? How how do you argue that any treatment is effective if not statistics like these? And it’s not fair to say no vaccine survives this delineation because I specifically used Polio as an example of an effective vaccine.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      There isn't a magical number which means the vaccine is effective, and below that number it is ineffective. A vaccine is effective if it helps people deal with a virus (i.e. lowering chance of hospitalisation/death). It doesn't magically become ineffective because it doesn't meet an arbitrary percentage of prevented cases. The Polio vaccine is "only" 99-100% effective. That means that it's not 100% effective (as in, there are cases where it doesn't prevent transmission/infection). According to the criterium laid out by GP this means it is an ineffective vaccine, just like the Covid vaccine.