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.
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.