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.
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.