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?
I’m not even for that. Vaccines typically require years of tests/trials. This vaccine has had a few months? We have no idea what long-term risks the vaccine may possess. To add, CNN ran an article saying, essentially, “don’t be alarmed if a bunch of old people die after getting the vaccine! It’s TOTALLY safe!”.
So yeah, I will not advocate that any person from any demographic get this vaccine. Again, as we all know, there’s a .004% risk of death from covid. I will not pretend covid is some fucking rampant killer where we absolutely must risk the very people’s health that we’re already concerned with by shoving a vaccine down their throat. This has been such an outrageous response from the beginning and I’m sick and tired of people entertaining any of it.
Sorry pede, don’t mean to direct any anger towards you. I seriously get so triggered talking about covid because I do not understand why, after all the data we now have, anyone would treat this differently than they would a cold.
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.
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.
i'm all for people in vulnerable demographics getting it. but most people don't need it.
they didn't really study it on the sick or the elderly. almost nobody in their study had a comorbidity whereas all the people dying have like 3.
I’m not even for that. Vaccines typically require years of tests/trials. This vaccine has had a few months? We have no idea what long-term risks the vaccine may possess. To add, CNN ran an article saying, essentially, “don’t be alarmed if a bunch of old people die after getting the vaccine! It’s TOTALLY safe!”.
So yeah, I will not advocate that any person from any demographic get this vaccine. Again, as we all know, there’s a .004% risk of death from covid. I will not pretend covid is some fucking rampant killer where we absolutely must risk the very people’s health that we’re already concerned with by shoving a vaccine down their throat. This has been such an outrageous response from the beginning and I’m sick and tired of people entertaining any of it.
Sorry pede, don’t mean to direct any anger towards you. I seriously get so triggered talking about covid because I do not understand why, after all the data we now have, anyone would treat this differently than they would a cold.
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.