"micky" wrote in message
...
In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 22:58:29 -0400,
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 20:24:06 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:


"The effectiveness of the Moderna is 94.1%; Pfizer, 95%,
Johnson & Johnson, 66%."

Since the survival rate of unvaccinated people is 99.7% or so those
numbers are somewhat un reassuring.

You are comparing
apples to oranges. You cannot extrapolate from the
death rate of those who have so far had the virus to the
entire population, the majority of which have not contracted
the virus. So your 99.7% number is meaningless, wrong and dangerous.

Note that the survival rate for all vaccines is 100%, as
even if one does get the virus after vaccination, the symptoms are
significantly
milder, if even detectable.

If Fauci had said that Paul would not have had much more to say

Why are we still running scared even after vaccination?

Because even the best vaccine is only 95% effective

And that is at preventing severe disease. We don't
yet know how effective they are at preventing
infection tho that is being measured now.

and it's still not known how much vaccinated people (not only don't
get symptoms but) don't get infectious** so they can infect others.

And that's even harder to measure.

There's a lot of evidence that they resist even getting
the infection, but they don't have good numbers yet,
and unless the number was very high, unless 80 or 90%
who don't get infectious, that is still enough to continue
to spread the disease and infect whatever unvaccinated
people there are, who risk ICU and death.

And we don't yet know how effective the vaccines are
against the worst of the more virulent strains tho it is
known that the AZ isnt very effective at all against the
south african variant in the RSA.

And that's the sort of thing public health workers care about.

And what we should all care about except in countrys like
Australia and New Zealand which have the virus well under
control and arent getting any community transmission at
all now. The new cases are all with those entering the country.

There must be web pages that discuss disease transmission
of communicable diseases, which I think is the major aspect
of epidemiology. Reading 5 or 10 screens about that could
be enlightening.

Not for him, it goes in one ear and straight out the other.

He cant even get the death rate from the virus right, or
even manage to work out that the death rate due to the
virus is still TEN times the death rate due to car accidents.

There is a lot of arithmetic in it I'm sure.
Multiplication especially.

Yeah, its surprisingly complicated, particularly when the bulk
of the population has had the disease or has been vaccinated.

**I'm using "infectious" because of an earlier misunderstanding we had
here. One of us used "sick" to mean showing symptoms and the other
used the word to also include infected. I think I was the second one
and I never posted an even better example. If someone T has typhoid
but no symptoms, but people can still catch typhoid from T and then
die, is T not sick? I say T is sick, even without symptoms.

Nope, just infectious.

But it was also reasonable to use it to mean only people who have
symptoms. That's what the meaning often is, sick meaning showing
symptoms, like vomiting, fever, etc. Without that someone's not sick.

Because these are two meanings of the same word.

Not really. The first one is infectious, not sick.
Typhoid Mary was infectious but not sick.