Sam Lowry said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Sam Lowry said:
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
ATL Bear said:
Sam Lowry said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/16/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-trial-effective-candidate/6307647002/
"Moderna's candidate COVID-19 vaccine looks to protect 94.5% of those who get it, trial shows"
"Experts"
Not even close.
Article literally quotes the outcome ratios in coming up with a 90% effectiveness against infection.
Let me repeat what we're looking for: "100% permanent protection from a mutating bug."
I would have given it the benefit of the doubt at 90%. Instead we're sub flu vaccine levels, and the benchmark changed from protection from infection to protection from severe COVID. A fascinating stat is that we will have more COVID cases in 2022 than we had in the entire pandemic prior to this year. And not just in the US, but globally.
Let's at least be intellectually honest and say that the experts thought it would provide a high likelihood of protection against infection, and it has not, even with now a third booster.
The change was in public perception, at least the anti-vax public, not the actual benchmarks. The vaccines did provide a high level of protection against infection from the variants that were active at that time.
Delta was the deadliest variant, and it was known before this article was written. It ravaged across Europe and the US 8 months later. The vaccine has continually operated like an advance therapeutic and not an immuno-vaccine as it was originally thought and touted to be. There's certainly a benefit to reducing severe COVID, no argument there. It has not curbed spread by any meaningful measure, nor does it appear it ever will. This wasn't a miss by the "ant-vax" crowd, it was a miss by the actual product itself.
Obviously we've talked about this before. It's just...wrong. The product was a vaccine, and by any normal standard it was effective against Delta. It's wasn't 100% effective, which brings me back to my question. When did Fauci, or any expert, ever say it was 100% effective and permanent against present and future variants?
Don't straw man. The pharmaceutical companies and Fauci promoted the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines as > 90% effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2. They clearly did not. That does not mean they are not valuable in reducing the severity of symptoms, but as noted by the article I posted they were not nearly as effective as the "experts" told us they would be.
Yes they were.
no they were not.
Fauci did not, during most of 2021, go to the talk show circuit to promote the vaccine as a way to slow the spread.
He promoted the vaccine as the best way to STOP the spread. (95% effective....)
Fauci did not, during most of 2021, go to the talk show circuit to promote the vaccine as temporary protection.
He promoted the vaccine as long term protection.
Fauci did not, during most of 2021, go to the talk show circuit to promote the vaccine asvthe first of what would be many booster shots to provide continuing protection against death.
He promoted the vaccine as long term protection against infection.
Fauci did not, during most of 2021, go to the talk show circuit to promote the vaccine as a solution with a primary benefit of reduce severity of illness.
Fauci promoted the reduction of severity of illness as a side-benefit.
Sam, we all heard that arrogant ***** all day, every day, for days on end, droning on and on, constantly contradicting what he had said on previous days. We remember exactly what he said. He wanted every single American vaccinated by hook or crook. He said whatever he thought he needed to say to make that happen, to include taking affirmative steps to use his own bureaucratic power to have people fired for refusing the vaccine.
Why on earth would you waste ink defending that little Nazi?