Indeed, and that's theoretical. There's no clinical proof of that, only statistical modeling with assumptions that may, or may not, be correct.
No, we're not going to forget
- Thread starter naturalbornhawk
- Start date
Trial(s) started in May of 2020. By November they issued a press release claiming their vaccine was 95% effective against covid-19, and that the safety milestone required by their bitch, uhh, I mean the FDA, had been met.
Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints | Pfizer
Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose; 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and...
www.pfizer.com
Apparently not very many...
Estimated Effectiveness of a Primary Cycle of Protein Recombinant Vaccine NVX-CoV2373 Against COVID-19
This cohort study evaluates the estimated effectiveness of a primary vaccination cycle with NVX-CoV2373 against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 among adults in Italy.
jamanetwork.com
BNT162b2 Vaccine for Delta and Omicron Infection In US Children Aged 5-11 Years
This cross-sectional study estimates BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection among children aged 5 to 11 years during Delta and Omicron variant–predominant periods, by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status and Omicron sublineage.
jamanetwork.com
THAT IS PREVENTING INFECTIONS, IDIOT
No; it is not.
Flu virus mutates EVERY YEAR, which is WHY we have updated vaccines EVERY YEAR to minimize the spread.
In years the predicted formulation does not match what ends up circulating, we have FAR worse flu years, with MANY more infections.
Covid vaccines will continue to require updates as that virus mutates UNTIL we can formulate a "universal" version. And Covid virus mutates 2x to 5x more rapidly than flu - something completely NOT predicted for it when it first arrived - it was speculated to mutate far less frequently and rapidly
"moron"
I did not state that.
Viruses can SPREAD like compounding interest.
So, AGAIN: WHICH would you prefer? 50% annual ROI, or 35%, compounded over 20 years?
This too hard a question for you?
No; it's factual.
Vaccines ARE reducing the spread BY preventing infections.
It's MATH
No
NO MORON....."Possible" reduction is NOT FULL prevention. And, it is NOT even proven 100% Good Grief...
The point being, that UNTIL the mutation hits they have NO IDEA what to formulate for the vaccine, thus people will be at risk. And, as you pointed out, COVID is NOTHING like the Flu Chode.
And one more time....why don't answer to the REAL reason your had for your entire diatribe? Remember, my first post that I keep reminding you about? Lets refresh: My original post basically said that MANY of the population was worried about the vaccine at the time because of the change in the NORMAL time frame for developing and testing the Vaccine. Very, very simple to understand. Again, why do you defelct and not simply acknowledge that people can and did have those worries?
Last edited:
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have shown to neither prevent infection nor spread. Their efficacy is very limited and specific.
I have NEVER stated vaccines provide "FULL prevention".
They are 30% effective, which is NOT "FULL prevention".
Yet, even 'leaky' vaccines can substantially slow the spread, and provide protection for those who cannot be vaccinated.
AND prevent Long Covid for MOST.
So?
That's exactly how flu vaccines work.
They formulate based on the info that is available.
And the updated vaccine has worked quite well against the XBB circulating variants; comparable to seasonal flu vaccines.
Uh...yes. They have. The updated Omicron formulations do EXACTLY that, outlined for you in the links.
Exactly, so neither one provides full protection from getting or spreading. And especially until AFTER they see how the virus mutates.
What part of "reducing" infections MEANS they PREVENT infections is confusing for you?
I've stated this, many many times for you.
And even partial protection results in serious declines in infection rates over a 20 month winter flu/cold/Covid season.
ANOTHER HINT: Viral spread follows similar mathematics to compounding interest. Go look at what "10% difference" in compounded interest over 20 compounding periods (years) looks like. 1.5x vs 1.35x returns.
Viruses spread on approximately a "weekly" compounding period, analogous to annual compounding for financial returns. Thus, even a 5-10% reduction, compounded 20x over the 20 weeks, means well UNDER half the infections for vaccinated populations vs unvaccinated populations.
Which is IRRELEVANT in identifying the BENEFITS of partial protection over a 3-4 month respiratory virus season.
I have already explained this to you. Lets try this....If I have people trying to break into my house and I put a measure in place that keeps 3 out, but lets 7 make it in....I am reducing the number of intruders, but not preventing the intrusion. This is not hard.
And one more time....why don't you answer the REAL reason you had for coming at me in the first place. Remember, my first post that I keep reminding YOU about? Lets refresh: My original post basically said that MANY of the population was worried about the vaccine at the time because of the change in the NORMAL time frame for developing and testing the Vaccine. Very, very simple to understand. Again, why do you defelct and not simply acknowledge that people can and did have those worries?
Joes Place rarely puts the goalposts back after he moves them. It's really his best skill, and he's quite good at it. Maybe the best ever. He also will simply wear people out, and then claim victory when they get tired of him. He's really, really good at that. And last, but not least, he resorts to name calling when he's clearly beaten. Everyone else is stupid, and he's the smartest in the room.
This is not a remotely useful example.
And does not take into account the exponential spread rates, which can be significantly attenuated by even "leaky" vaccines.
You certainly have shown your colors here.
Do you understand, or do you NOT understand compounded interest and exponential growth rates?
If a vaccine reduces infection propagation by 10%, the difference in the number of people infected, starting from a single infection and over 20 weeks (20 compounding periods - which would be "annual" for an investment) is a ratio of >8x.
For R0=1.5:
1.5^20 = 3325
1.35^20 = 404 (10% effective means 1.5x0.1=0.15 reduction in R0.
Ergo, a 10% effective vaccine, given to everyone, can reduce the number of infected carriers by 8x over a 20 week period (which is roughly the length of cold/flu/Covid season).
FTR, the current vaccine boost is >30% effective out to 14 weeks or more, which means infections are attenuated even more than my simplistic example.
Look, I have no problem with people having a different opinion then me. Lord know's I get things wrong. It's just that if you question me, it should be legitimate. Have a GREAT day buddy and GO HAWKS!!!
Wrong......
And one more time....why don't you answer the REAL reason you had for coming at me in the first place. Remember, my first post that I keep reminding YOU about? Lets refresh: My original post basically said that MANY of the population was worried about the vaccine at the time because of the change in the NORMAL time frame for developing and testing the Vaccine. Very, very simple to understand. Again, why do you defelct and not simply acknowledge that people can and did have those worries?
You are making a puzzling comparison. You did not understand the difference between exponential and geometric when COVID arrived. Now you're trying to make a stupid point about vaccines effectiveness having a compounding effect when nearly everyone has contracted the disease, whether vaccinated or not. There can be no compounding when the vaccines doesn't prevent infection, doesn't prevent spread, has a low efficacy, and efficacy is for only a very short window. Add the speed of mutation, and you have no argument. I suggest you move the goalpost, because that's your real talent.
No; you claimed they "skipped steps".
There fundamentally ISN'T a difference.
Geometric means "integers" rounded up. Exponential is the same growth, but with real numbers.
So, I guess it's only a "puzzling comparison" for someone who doesn't actually understand any finance.
WTAF?
The infection #'s compound over time, idiot.
If ONE person infects 2 others, that is geometric growth.
If you vaccine is 50% effective, then 1 person only infects ONE other person. That is flat infection rates.
So long as R0 is >1, you have some form of exponential or geometric growth. Preventing even a small % of infections dramatically SLOWS that growth rate. Go open up your own Excel spreadsheet and run those numbers, yourself. Understanding that your "compounding period" for the next generation of infections is about 1 week, maybe even less.
We absolutely saw this exponential growth in the first month of the pandemic, when NO ONE had any immunity. I posted those graphs for you just about daily, showing you they had a linear trajectory on a log-scale. For most of the month of March. Back then, we prevented infections by distance and shutting down major sports/concert events. Today, we can prevent the spread every fall by getting more people updated vaccine boosts.
Mutations will make this update vaccine less effective over time. That is not being contested.
But it WILL prevent thousands of infections while it IS effective for many months.
Just.Like.Flu.Vaccines.Work
Seems like your info only shows up on the typical conspiracy-hypothesis websites and Musks disinformation Machine, and is a load of BS...
I will make a deal with you. If you can look at my orignal post shown below, and show everyone where I said they "Skipped Steps" in it, I will stop posting in this thread IMMEDIATLY. If you can't (and we all know you can't), YOU will stop posting in this thread IMMEDIATLY. Agree?
Here is my original post:
The main problem a lot people have with the COVID Vaccine is the fact that they were introduced from start to finish withing 11 months. Most Vaccines take years of trials and testing to approve. I took the Vaccine and am glad I did. However, I know a lot of people are scared of the long term effects of what the vaccine might be. And, lets be honest, if they have the technology to safely introduce a vaccine to the world....then lets get the rest of these things out there faster.
You've stated (or implied) it in many OTHER posts, specifically where I pointed out "parallel" vs "sequential" development efforts.
Your an effing liar. You got caught and you know it.
Need more proof? Lets take a look at what YOUR reply was to my original post:And you appear to be ignorant as to how this was accomplished.
HINT: It was NOT by "skipping steps".
NO WHERE in my original post did I say ANYTHING about anyone skipping steps. THAT WAS YOU who stated those words, not me. Good grief grandpa...I even said later on that I and my family took the vaccine and were HAPPY to have it available.
Everyone is right.....you move the goalpost more than anyone on here, to give the appearance that you know what the heck you are talking about. So, I will take it you will be done posting in this thread now? LOL!!
🤣
Bret Weinstein?! The guy who doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS?! That's your source, the type of "research" you pursue?!
No wonder your posts are so downright stupid.
🤡
