Yes, the 95% number did. Good Lord. Don't go saying stupid crap. It makes all of us who are skeptical look like morons. If you don't know, don't say it. The 95% did in fact come from this study. They had 43,000 people. Half got the vax. Half didn't. They waited a few months and screened anyone who showed up with flu-like symptoms. 8 positive cases in the vaxxed group, 162 in the placebo group --> 95% efficacy.
So, if you just don't bother to screen your test subjects when they have flu-like respiratory symptoms, it makes it look like the drug is more effective than it actually is. In truth, those people could be: 1) sick with something else (no change), 2) all in the placebo group (vax is even better), or 3) heavily in the vax group (vax is much worse). But we don't know because they didn't get the PCR test. Any proper peer-reviewer would toss the study on this and any proper journal with integrity would retract the paper. It's not a small deal.
Yes, the 95% number did. Good Lord. Don't go saying stupid crap. It makes all of us who are skeptical look like morons. If you don't know, don't say it. The 95% did in fact come from this study. They had 43,000 people. Half got the vax. Half didn't. They waited a few months and screened anyone who showed up with flu-like symptoms. 8 positive cases in the vaxxed group, 162 in the placebo group --> 95% efficacy.
So, if you just don't bother to screen your test subjects when they have flu-like respiratory symptoms, it makes it look like the drug is more effective than it actually is. In truth, those people could be: 1) sick with something else (no change), 2) all in the placebo group (vax is even better), or 3) heavily in the vax group (vax is much worse). But we don't know because they didn't get the PCR test. Any proper peer-reviewer would toss the study on this and any proper journal with integrity would retract the paper. It's not a small deal.
That is not what that article says at all.