Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
I'm sorry - but this has been bothering me also...
Saying the vaccine has a 95% effectiveness rating is not the same as survival rate. Ben is correct here - although I wouldn't say just get the vaccine.
I actually won't be getting the vaccine. The side effects seem to be just as bad as the wu-flu itself (bill gates says "extremely painful"), and I'm not entirely sure about mRNA as a vaccine method yet. I'd still rather take my 99.9% chance of survival, IF I get it.
The 95% effective rating is a juiced number. I don't believe it was found to be that effective. You have to read the actual trial study to find that though.
Correct. The study participants were not challenged with virus (like we CAN do with bee venom immunotherapy, as an example).
Study participants went forth and him many caught COVID was recorded to judge effectiveness of the vaccine. Believe me, study participants are those that aggressively avoid visit exposure situations. We are comparing rigorous virus avoiders v the general public. Unfair comparison
Effectiveness rating is a nonsense term to begin with.
If I didn't have a shortened attention span due to a light speed news cycle, I'd love to see what numbers/parameters they are using to create this artificial and nonsensical so-called "effectiveness rating."
True effectiveness could possibly be determined by having a vaccined population of acceptable size and a non-vaccinated population of acceptable size intentionally exposed to the virus in the same manner and then gathering results based on positivity of the same tests and, as an extra point, comparing the symptoms/mortality rates of the two groups.
We all know this is not what is done, so whatever number they pull out of the blackhole of fake science is garbage and based on hypothetical conjecture instead of reality. It's likely the above study would show no benefit to vaccination, which they know - of course it would also be a legal nightmare lol, but it was just to convey a point.
Did you know his wife is a doctor?
I know his sister has a great pair of milkers!
Updoot for a nice pair
Wow you weren't kidding
Yowza!
They must be reliable then.
I figured that out after he said he voted for Trump but then didn't back him after all the obvious voter & election fraud!
I'm sorry - but this has been bothering me also...
Saying the vaccine has a 95% effectiveness rating is not the same as survival rate. Ben is correct here - although I wouldn't say just get the vaccine.
I actually won't be getting the vaccine. The side effects seem to be just as bad as the wu-flu itself (bill gates says "extremely painful"), and I'm not entirely sure about mRNA as a vaccine method yet. I'd still rather take my 99.9% chance of survival, IF I get it.
But to digress, let's be smart here.
The 95% effective rating is a juiced number. I don't believe it was found to be that effective. You have to read the actual trial study to find that though.
I would agree with that too - I LOL'd when Pfizer went from 90ish to 95 jsut to beat out Moderna.
The comment above the tweet is also misleading and I don't understand why so many people are parroting it here.
Correct. The study participants were not challenged with virus (like we CAN do with bee venom immunotherapy, as an example).
Study participants went forth and him many caught COVID was recorded to judge effectiveness of the vaccine. Believe me, study participants are those that aggressively avoid visit exposure situations. We are comparing rigorous virus avoiders v the general public. Unfair comparison
Effectiveness rating is a nonsense term to begin with.
If I didn't have a shortened attention span due to a light speed news cycle, I'd love to see what numbers/parameters they are using to create this artificial and nonsensical so-called "effectiveness rating."
True effectiveness could possibly be determined by having a vaccined population of acceptable size and a non-vaccinated population of acceptable size intentionally exposed to the virus in the same manner and then gathering results based on positivity of the same tests and, as an extra point, comparing the symptoms/mortality rates of the two groups.
We all know this is not what is done, so whatever number they pull out of the blackhole of fake science is garbage and based on hypothetical conjecture instead of reality. It's likely the above study would show no benefit to vaccination, which they know - of course it would also be a legal nightmare lol, but it was just to convey a point.
The entire "alt-right" movement was a CIA psyop designed to divide and conquer. This guy and Richard Spencer are agents.