Right, but if it's only 95% effective like they claim, but the recovery rate even before the vaccine was well above 95%, then what is the vaccine needed for?
If my body is 99% effective at killing a disease, why would I need something that's only 95% effective?
The efficacyof a vaccine is its ability to decrease the incidence of that disease in a set population. The *incidence *is the probability that an individual will be diagnosed with a disease over a certain period of time. Efficacy and effectiveness mean two different things when it comes to vaccines, but in this case 95% is efficacy
The incidence of covid is tricky to determine for a number of reasons but lets pretend that its 10% across a certain time period. They determined the covid vaccine to have 95% efficacy after two doses. In this scenario it reduces each persons chance of being diagnosed with the disease by 95% across that time period, from 10% to 0.5%. This is just theoretical because in reality there are always people who are unable to take a vaccine and other variables.
95% efficacy does not mean that if a person contracts the disease they are 95% less likely to die of it.
Ok I understand that. But then surely that contradicts all these people who say "We still can't travel! We still need masks! The vaccine won't stop the spread!"
Because if it reduces the likelihood of catching it by 95% when that likelihood is already pretty low, and the survival rate is over 99%, then the chances of a random person dying from it are almost non existent.
For arguments sake, lets say we had no vaccines, and 10% of the population caught the coof in a year. If the death rate is 1% (probably a lot lower but we'll say 1% for the sake of this), then that's 0.1% of the population who would die per year. With an average lifespan of around 80, you'd expect 1-2% of the population to die of natural causes each year anyway. So if you take away 95% of cases, you're also taking away roughly 95% of deaths. Meaning there would be like 0.005% of the population dying of the coof per year. So that means like 1 in 3000 deaths in a given year would be cause by the coof.
If that is the case, why would we still need lockdowns and masks? I'm being really generous with numbers here too so it's probably a lot less than what I'm thinking.
I'm just kind of asking rhetorical questions, I know it's never been about the virus.
holy shit the next tweet is even worse. He goes on to say: "Everything still applies until all of us gets that two-dose regimen. We don't think that'll happen til June or July." Wow ALL of us huh? Yeah go FUCK YOURSELF
Isn't the vaccine just to prevent people who do not already have natural immunity from getting the disease? And if you have natural immunity, due to having had china flu and recovering from it, the vaccine would serve no medical purpose whatsoever. So, since the 'pandemic' has already infected everybody 3 or 4 times now according to the official numbers, my math tells me there's just about no one left who needs a vaccine. Vaccines expose your immune system to the disease in a weakened form so that your immune system develops an immune response - and so does being exposed to the actual disease do this same thing, probably much better. So, since there is no actual medical purpose in terms of preventing more china flu cases for this vaccine, ask yourself then, what is the purpose of forcing it on people? If you already had measles, getting a measles vaccine isn't something a doctor (competent doctor) would advise.
If it is a vaccine THEN IT MEANS YOU ARE IMMUNE, YOU CAN'T BECOME INFECTED AND YOU CAN'T INFECT OTHERS. THAT'S WHAT VACCINE MEANS
Right, but if it's only 95% effective like they claim, but the recovery rate even before the vaccine was well above 95%, then what is the vaccine needed for?
If my body is 99% effective at killing a disease, why would I need something that's only 95% effective?
it would be 95% effective on the 0.04% failure rate.
like if you had one gun that had a 0.04% failure, instead of nothing, you have another with a 5% failure rate.
still stupid.
The 0.04% is for people who are severely ill. If you're healthy you have a 100.00% survival rate.
There is a 99%+ chance your body is 100% effective at killing the disease.
The efficacyof a vaccine is its ability to decrease the incidence of that disease in a set population. The *incidence *is the probability that an individual will be diagnosed with a disease over a certain period of time. Efficacy and effectiveness mean two different things when it comes to vaccines, but in this case 95% is efficacy
The incidence of covid is tricky to determine for a number of reasons but lets pretend that its 10% across a certain time period. They determined the covid vaccine to have 95% efficacy after two doses. In this scenario it reduces each persons chance of being diagnosed with the disease by 95% across that time period, from 10% to 0.5%. This is just theoretical because in reality there are always people who are unable to take a vaccine and other variables.
95% efficacy does not mean that if a person contracts the disease they are 95% less likely to die of it.
Ok I understand that. But then surely that contradicts all these people who say "We still can't travel! We still need masks! The vaccine won't stop the spread!"
Because if it reduces the likelihood of catching it by 95% when that likelihood is already pretty low, and the survival rate is over 99%, then the chances of a random person dying from it are almost non existent.
For arguments sake, lets say we had no vaccines, and 10% of the population caught the coof in a year. If the death rate is 1% (probably a lot lower but we'll say 1% for the sake of this), then that's 0.1% of the population who would die per year. With an average lifespan of around 80, you'd expect 1-2% of the population to die of natural causes each year anyway. So if you take away 95% of cases, you're also taking away roughly 95% of deaths. Meaning there would be like 0.005% of the population dying of the coof per year. So that means like 1 in 3000 deaths in a given year would be cause by the coof.
If that is the case, why would we still need lockdowns and masks? I'm being really generous with numbers here too so it's probably a lot less than what I'm thinking.
I'm just kind of asking rhetorical questions, I know it's never been about the virus.
holy shit the next tweet is even worse. He goes on to say: "Everything still applies until all of us gets that two-dose regimen. We don't think that'll happen til June or July." Wow ALL of us huh? Yeah go FUCK YOURSELF
Source
https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/1338912921632600066
Isn't the vaccine just to prevent people who do not already have natural immunity from getting the disease? And if you have natural immunity, due to having had china flu and recovering from it, the vaccine would serve no medical purpose whatsoever. So, since the 'pandemic' has already infected everybody 3 or 4 times now according to the official numbers, my math tells me there's just about no one left who needs a vaccine. Vaccines expose your immune system to the disease in a weakened form so that your immune system develops an immune response - and so does being exposed to the actual disease do this same thing, probably much better. So, since there is no actual medical purpose in terms of preventing more china flu cases for this vaccine, ask yourself then, what is the purpose of forcing it on people? If you already had measles, getting a measles vaccine isn't something a doctor (competent doctor) would advise.
Or your viral load is increased after the vaccine and that’s how you spread it!