"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 12:39:57 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 3:07:37 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
" wrote in message
...
On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 1:54:17 PM UTC-4, Oliver George wrote:
https://www.infowars.com/posts/this-...-hoax-forever/
And you still cannot differentiate a credible source from pure crap.
Here are 12 important questions and answers before considering
getting
vaccinated:
Q: If I get vaccinated can I stop wearing a mask(s)?
Government: NO
Fine. Wearing a mask is not onerous.
Q: If I get vaccinated will the restaurants, bars, schools, fitness
clubs, hair salons, etc. reopen and will people be able to get back
to
work like
normal?
Government: NO
I've been working unvaccinated all year. I'll be happy for everybody
at my office to be vacinnated.
Q: If I get vaccinated will I be resistant to Covid?
Government: Maybe. We dont know exactly, but probably not.
That's wrong. The effectiveness of the Moderna is 94.1%; Pfizer,
95%,
Johnson & Johnson, 66%.
Those are the numbers for avoiding serious
disease, not for getting infected.
That's wrong.
Nope, thats what the Phase 3 trials measured and thats
where those numbers came from. They havent measure
the effectiveness of preventing infection by the virus yet,
that measurement is being done now and we dont have
the numbers yet.
The effectiveness was measured by people being diagnosed
as having Covid, not for having serious disease.
Wrong, as always.
Just like always, just like Trump and Fretwell. Get
it wrong and then just keep doubling down on it.
We'll see...
I read the Pfizer trial document that was submitted to FDA for approval.
But clearly didnt understand it or even what a Phase 3 trial is about.
The effectiveness number was not based on "serious disease".
It was measured on how many of the people who
were vaccinated wound up DIAGNOSED with Covid,
regardless of the severity, compared to the control group.
Wrong, as always and that document didnt even say that.
It isnt even possible to diagnose who got covid because
the whole point of a vaccine is to get the body to produce
lots of antibodys so you cant even measure if the individual
has got covid when there are no symptoms.
It was ~95% effective in reducing the number diagnosed with Covid.
Wrong, as always.
Further, other studies, eg Israel have confirmed that.
But they arent the ones who produced that 95% number.
And even then, the Israeli data certainly suggest that the
Pfizer vaccine is effective at reducing transmission, but it isnt
possible to put a percentage on how effectively it does that.
It is possible to put a number on the percentage who get severe disease.
And if the metric is "serious Covid", then the effectiveness is even
higher.
Wrong, as always.
If the test subjects came down with Covid symptoms
they were examined by doctors and tested for Covid.
Pity about those who never had any symptoms.
They did not have to present with "serious disease"
to be counted, only symptomatic Covid.
Pity about those who never had any symptoms.
Wrong, as always. That may well be what your
media has told you, but its just plain wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine#Efficacy
Thanks for confirming that you don't know WTF you're talking about.
We'll see...
From your own reference:
"The effectiveness of a new vaccine is defined by its efficacy
during clinical trials.[140] The efficacy is the risk of getting the
disease by vaccinated participants in the trial compared with
the risk of getting the disease by unvaccinated participants.
Thats a bleeding chunk shorthand from the entire section.
In efficacy calculations, symptomatic COVID-19 is generally
defined as having both a positive PCR test and at least one
or two of a defined list of COVID-19 symptoms, although
exact specifications varying between trials. "
Pity about those who have no symptoms. Those are clearly infected.
Exactly what I said.
Wrong, as always.
It doesn't say what you said, which is that
it's measured by reduction in "serious cases".
I said serious disease, not serious cases.
Further, if you look at the table, it says for the Moderna vaccine,
if the metric is "serious disease", then the efficacy is close to 100%.
But it doesnt say that the risk of infection is reduced by any percentage.
And you deleted the lancet article because it
blows your stupid claim right out of the water.
reams of your **** flushed where it belongs