31–40 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds low. Where did you get your numbers?
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't recall a single instance of 100% efficacy claim. It was around 92-97%.
You are arguing over semantics. In reality, the Pfizer vax has proven to be less than 10% effective at stopping a future infection.
Quoted post unavailable.
Same reason it might not be sensible to have sex unprotected with a syphilis patient.
The vaccines were also lauded as 100% effective in the early days by Fauci and others, so just a reminder that time and reproducibility matter before being too confident about it.
I don't recall a single instance of 100% efficacy claim. It was around 92-97%.
The vaccines were also lauded as 100% effective in the early days by Fauci and others, so just a reminder that time and reproducibility matter before being too confident about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The race to vaccinate enough people is frankly impossible considering how politically charged it became. Fucking Republicans. Please take your politically charged discourse elsewhere. This isn't the right place for mudslinging like this.
I do agree with the general sentiment of keeping politics out of it. But sadly there do seem to be some pretty strong correlations at a county level across the US. It could also be rural/urban cultural divides but the more obvious one is simply politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
There is very good data on this. Infection rates are roughly 5x higher, and death rates 13x higher, among the unvaccinated.
It also depends how you define efficacy/effectiveness. Does it mean for each exposure, over a period of time, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
You are completely wrong -- totally warped by the narrative. Look at the Pfizer press release, Nov 9, 2020 - the first sentence: "Vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analysis" https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are completely wrong -- totally warped by the narrative. Look at the Pfizer press release, Nov 9, 2020 - the first sentence: "Vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analysis" https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
Maybe I'm misinformed, but as I understood it, COVID-19 is the disease brought upon by SARS-Cov-2 infection. That line on its own doesn't suggest it prevents infection, it suggests it prevents the COVID-19 disease (i.e 90% chance of being left with a asymptomatic infection).