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.
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.
The comment above the tweet is also misleading and I don't understand why so many people are parroting it here.