4 ms·
The efficacy rate was not being measured based on death/sickness, but on any infection at all. It was supposed to be 94.1% effective in terms of completely prev
by somenameforme 3y ago
The efficacy rate was not being measured based on death/sickness, but on any infection at all. It was supposed to be 94.1% effective in terms of completely preventing infection.
- ceejayoz 3y agoAgain, I think you're having trouble reading. From your link: > The median length of follow up for efficacy for participants in the study was 9 weeks post Dose 2. There were 11 COVID‑19 cases in the Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group, with a vaccine efficacy of 94.1% (95% confidence interval of 89.3% to 96.8%). > Cases of COVID‑19, starting 14 days after Dose 2, were defined as symptomatic COVID‑19 requiring positive RT-PCR result and at least two systemic symptoms or one respiratory symptom. A SARS-CoV-2 infection and a COVID-19 case aren't the same thing, for the same reason a HIV infection is not the same as having AIDS. The 94.1% number comes from counts of actual sickness, despite your assertions to the contrary.
- somenameforme 3y agoFeel free to change the above to claim they stated it would create a negative PCR test or a PCR test with less than 1 one respiratory symptom or 2 systemic symptoms. It does not meaningfully change the issue whatsoever. The asterisk by infection went, without skipping a beat, from a 'PCR test and symptoms' to 'hospitalization/death.' These are very different things.