> Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 95.3% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 cases in South Africa, where the B.1.351 lineage is prevalent
It's a baby and the bathwater situation. Some pharma incentives are perverse, and some people involved in the past and present were behind it. It's worth being cautious about taking things at face value, but it's always worth being skeptical.
Assuming everyone in the company has the same character as whichever employees you anchor on and assuming evidence is falsified is also suboptimal.
Well, they've directly protected me from disease at least twice. Life isn't binary 100% or 0%, we have a whole range of numbers between the two extremes.
>Well, they've directly protected me from disease at least twice.
i'm glad for you, but somewhat skeptical of the knowledge. How does one even determine that? Exposure events that didn't cause symptoms, or lessened symptoms encountered when affected?
It's a genuine question; I don't really understand how one would separate immune system effectiveness from vaccine effectiveness with a sampling of a single person given that not every exposure results in illness and the fluidity of the expressed symptoms across the board are so all-over-the-place that they're difficult to compare.
The first time(of two) I was exposed to covid by my roommate, we didn't have tests(he later had an antibody test that was positive), but I never developed any symptoms. Who knows, but I was protected from acute illness. The second time he brought it home, we had tests, where he tested positive on multiple days, and I never tested positive nor showed symptoms. Both times, I took no precautions since I was initially exposed before I could mask or distance myself. I have pictures of my negative results, but I don't think you'd accept that as evidence. I just bring this up because there's still a lot of people who don't believe these vaccines work at all, and I am anecdata that shows they do work to reduce or prevent disease(and even infection, proved by rapid testing). Those were two cases where someone in the (small) household was sick. I'm sure, as I work in public education, I've been exposed many more times, but I can't say anything about public exposure since I don't have proof of exposure or duration.
I have no doubt that there is a correlation and I did read the Bayesian Vector Autoregression paper. However, I think it's a bit misleading for a doctor to take to social media with some very casual observations of Amazon reviews and make confident claims that covid is about to "surge" so therefore we should all return to masking. I need a lot more than just his screenshots of the reviews. I need to see the cases actually surging. They aren't in most of the world. One of his "no scent" reviews was actually just a subjective review that the scent isn't strong enough. The others were from a week ago. His linked article claims "COVID-19 cases predicted more “no smell” reviews. For every 100,000 new COVID-19 cases per week, he found, “no smell” reviews increased by a quarter of a percentage point in the next week." So shouldn't we have seen this surge already?
How long until we start hearing about choosing between getting a booster and losing your job? I suppose that's a convenient way to get unemployment down when your economy is experiencing record breaking inflation
17 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 53.3 ms ] thread> Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 95.3% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 cases in South Africa, where the B.1.351 lineage is prevalent
Why should it be different now ? Same people.
Assuming everyone in the company has the same character as whichever employees you anchor on and assuming evidence is falsified is also suboptimal.
i'm glad for you, but somewhat skeptical of the knowledge. How does one even determine that? Exposure events that didn't cause symptoms, or lessened symptoms encountered when affected?
It's a genuine question; I don't really understand how one would separate immune system effectiveness from vaccine effectiveness with a sampling of a single person given that not every exposure results in illness and the fluidity of the expressed symptoms across the board are so all-over-the-place that they're difficult to compare.
This just feels sloppy to me.