99% > 95%
The first assumes you are infected, or the percentage is even higher due to all those who don't get it, and the side effects are essentially nil.
95% effective vaccination where exposure to the vaccine is guaranteed by definition, and the potential for side effects up to and including near immediate death is guaranteed, at rates nobody is allowed to know and the manufacturer is legally protected from.
Typical vaccines are worth whatever risk they may pose because what they defend against are much worse. This is added risk for no gain. Also I'm going to need to see that data to verify your claim that those percentages are "additive". I doubt that's true.
Not the point at all, and a totally useless argument against the vaccine
How so?
The effectiveness of your body's immune system and that of the vaccine aren't exclusive, they are additive - it's not just one or the other.
There are good reasons to oppose the vaccine, but simply saying that 99%>95% doesn't make sense.
99% > 95% The first assumes you are infected, or the percentage is even higher due to all those who don't get it, and the side effects are essentially nil.
95% effective vaccination where exposure to the vaccine is guaranteed by definition, and the potential for side effects up to and including near immediate death is guaranteed, at rates nobody is allowed to know and the manufacturer is legally protected from.
Typical vaccines are worth whatever risk they may pose because what they defend against are much worse. This is added risk for no gain. Also I'm going to need to see that data to verify your claim that those percentages are "additive". I doubt that's true.