It's basic math. If your vaccine is 95% effective and 90% of your population is vaccinated, then your new infection rate should be:
(0.1 + 0.9 * 0.05) = 14.5% of the old rate. Instead it's the same or higher than the old rate. The only rational conclusion is that the vaccines don't work.
Even if only 50% were vaccinated your new infection rate should be.
0.5 + 0.5 * 0.05 = 52.5% of the old rate.
The 95% effectiveness was calculated from two cohorts of ~21K people each. The vaccinated cohort had 0.03% infected (about 7 cases) and the unvaxxed group had about 0.7% infected, or about 140 cases. 7/140 = 5%, so there were 5% as many cases in the vaxxed group, so that is a 95% less than the unvaxxed group.
Never mind that both groups have a very low risk of infection, must less chance of it advancing to severe. And for anyone who is taking vitamin D, both those percentages are reduced by 90% or more.
Problem is, just like there are two different infection fatality rates (CFR and IFR), there are two different effectiveness measurements for the vaccines: relative and absolute. The relative effectiveness is how well it works for an individual and the absolute is how well it works for the society.
The media always states the number that is best for the narrative.
It is 95% effective...at making money for Pfizer.
5% goes to pay off the corruption enabling it's distribution.
100% true. The clot shot makes Pfizer money. Tons of it. Two shots needed, boosters needed too.
Ivermectin that is a generic and super cheap? Nah doesn't make em money so it doesn't work.
While we know in reality it's a miracle drug. Read more here:
https://communities.win/c/GreatAwakening/p/12kFiTygkr/
This needs to be a meme.
It's basic math. If your vaccine is 95% effective and 90% of your population is vaccinated, then your new infection rate should be:
(0.1 + 0.9 * 0.05) = 14.5% of the old rate. Instead it's the same or higher than the old rate. The only rational conclusion is that the vaccines don't work.
Even if only 50% were vaccinated your new infection rate should be. 0.5 + 0.5 * 0.05 = 52.5% of the old rate.
And that’s why they like common core math instead.
LOL
95% effective because the desease is 98% survivable.
The 95% effectiveness was calculated from two cohorts of ~21K people each. The vaccinated cohort had 0.03% infected (about 7 cases) and the unvaxxed group had about 0.7% infected, or about 140 cases. 7/140 = 5%, so there were 5% as many cases in the vaxxed group, so that is a 95% less than the unvaxxed group.
Never mind that both groups have a very low risk of infection, must less chance of it advancing to severe. And for anyone who is taking vitamin D, both those percentages are reduced by 90% or more.
Problem is, just like there are two different infection fatality rates (CFR and IFR), there are two different effectiveness measurements for the vaccines: relative and absolute. The relative effectiveness is how well it works for an individual and the absolute is how well it works for the society.
The media always states the number that is best for the narrative.
95% with not helping. Seems like most of these vaccinated people are contracting the virus
Bc the vaccine makes your body produce the part of the virus (spike protein) that causes disease
Its 95% effective at training people to give up their inalienable rights.
If you look at the Pfizer symbol...I see 3-6’s. 2 make-up the logo & the ‘P’ makes the 3rd(?). Just noticed.
Hey now! This isn't about effectiveness of disease prevention, it's about effectiveness of growing Pfizer's bottom line.
C'mon man
Effective at destroying a person's immune system to make them have to take the booster in order to survive.
Effective at what?
They never claimed it granted immunity.
How can you have a breakthrough case when there was no immunity given?
It’s no mistake why mao killed off the smart people first in his cultural revolution