serious question

[LBDamned]

And yet the question, and answers continue to skip over a small but not insignificant group of us who have had and recovered from the kung flu. I am technically unvaccinated, but I am far from vulnerable or a threat.

Millions of us are in this group...

But there's no drama in that, so let's fabricate a bunch of bs to stay relevant.

[subscriber]

And just so you know, the 95% efficacy claim is relative risk ratio, it doesn't mean that you only have a 5% chance of catching the virus. This is another lie the boob tube keeps spreading.

How effective are the vaccines? It turns out, in terms of absolute risk reduction, not very effective:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8057721:

absolute risk reduction

[subscriber]

How do those that are unvaxed pose a greater threat of covid transmission than those who are vaxed?

As the absolute risk reduction for the vaccinated is either side of 1% compared to the un-vaccinated, the un-vaccinated pose a greater risk of about of 1% over the vaccinated. As in, noise...

See my post directly above.

[as_rocketman]

As the absolute risk reduction for the vaccinated is either side of 1% compared to the un-vaccinated, the un-vaccinated pose a greater risk of about of 1% over the vaccinated. As in, noise...

See my post directly above.

That is not what that letter means.

I've seen it cited about a dozen times here already, and not one who understands it.

[subscriber]

I've seen it cited about a dozen times here already, and not one who understands it.

Apparently you don't understand it either, or you would explain it.

I don't care about my "1% difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated" statement being an over simplification. I care about the 95% "efficacy" number for the vaccine not meaning 95 out of 100 vaccinated people exposed to covid won't get it. That is what is being sold. The reality is that to prevent one person contracting covid, one hundred have to be vaccinated. Not nearly the bargain of the century "safe and effective" suggests.

If you don't like the latter, argue with the National Institute of Health.

[as_rocketman]

Apparently you don't understand it either, or you would explain it.

No, that too is specious reasoning. I could very easily understand it fully and not want to waste the energy. All you have to do is read it.

I don't care about my "1% difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated" statement being an over simplification. I care about the 95% "efficacy" number for the vaccine not meaning 95 out of 100 vaccinated people exposed to covid won't get it. That is what is being sold. The reality is that to prevent one person contracting covid, one hundred have to be vaccinated. Not nearly the bargain of the century "safe and effective" suggests.

No. The bolded is false and it is not what the letter says. The two mRNA vaccines are currently running about 91% sterilizing immunity in both real-world results and in extended Phase III surveillance. The advertising was accurate.

If you don't like the latter, argue with the National Institute of Health.

The letter is fine. You didn't read it. You merely excerpted a sentence with no understanding of what they were talking about.

[subscriber]

You merely excerpted a sentence with no understanding of what they were talking about.

What then does the excerpted section mean?

[as_rocketman]

What then does the excerpted section mean?

For Pete's sake, man, the whole letter is under a thousand words. Just read it.

[subscriber]

For Pete's sake, man, the whole letter is under a thousand words. Just read it.

I am asking you to commit to an explanation. Else, all we get from you is that vaccines are good, everything else is bad; and we are all idiots for asking questions.

I read the report before posting the link. And again now. It supports my position, in that the way the vaccine efficacy is reported is chosen to make it sound better.

As there is a push to vaccinate everyone, this except is relevant:
.

Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs

[CaliforniaCowboy]

If a vaxed person can catch and transmit, how is an unvaxed person a risk to those that are vaxed?

Endless variants of the virus, that is how they will have everyone wearing masks forever.

[ACfixer]

Endless variants of the virus, that is how they will have everyone wearing masks forever.

This. If you want to try and get into the science of it OP, I would suggest researching behavioral medicine vs. physical because that's where you'll find your answers.

You are being duped into thinking that an unvax'd person is a risk to the vaccinated in order to put social pressure and make pariahs of those that refuse a "vaccine" for a virus we have a 99.97% chance of surviving.

[LBDamned]

This. If you want to try and get into the science of it OP, I would suggest researching behavioral medicine vs. physical because that's where you'll find your answers.

You are being duped into thinking that an unvax'd person is a risk to the vaccinated in order to put social pressure and make pariahs of those that refuse a "vaccine" for a virus we have a 99.97% chance of surviving.

(bold)They make a bunch of noise hoping people ignore that part.

It's been bogus from the very beginning... but if a "discussion" is successful, manipulation is possible... thats where we are now.

There is minimal discussion about the absurdity of requiring a vax for infinitesimal virus risk... the discussion has moved to risks of vax

[stonefly-2]

This. If you want to try and get into the science of it OP, I would suggest researching behavioral medicine vs. physical because that's where you'll find your answers.

You are being duped into thinking that an unvax'd person is a risk to the vaccinated in order to put social pressure and make pariahs of those that refuse a "vaccine" for a virus we have a 99.97% chance of surviving.

The odds of surviving increase exponentially with a protocol for not getting the viral infection in the first place.

Why is all this death,

injury and degradation of our economy being forwarded under the color of expertise again?

[chrisw]

I have seen the error of my ways and shall not question.

Will also start using mouthwash

OP needs to check his wrong think. The Facebook thought police will be calling on your shortly to help educate you too all the positives of being vaccinated and how dangerous the unvaccinated really are.

2+2=5 and you'll keep visiting room 111 until you understand that properly Winston.

[as_rocketman]

I am asking you to commit to an explanation. Else, all we get from you is that vaccines are good, everything else is bad; and we are all idiots for asking questions.

Hogwash. I am thus far giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are smart enough to read and comprehend the link that you brought to the discussion. This is the exact opposite of calling "you all" idiots. That window of doubt is rapidly closing, though.

I read the report before posting the link. And again now. It supports my position, in that the way the vaccine efficacy is reported is chosen to make it sound better.

That sounds like a walkback. Is it? You said previously the following, which is far, far stronger than the above:

As the absolute risk reduction for the vaccinated is either side of 1% compared to the un-vaccinated, the un-vaccinated pose a greater risk of about of 1% over the vaccinated. As in, noise...

... because this is not supported by the letter, and in fact has almost nothing to do with its content.

So did you now read and understand it? Do you still support your earlier statement?