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.
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.