What does efficacy mean

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: ScepticScot

No facts to support Pharma's claims. Indeed, 18 months in, the facts show the shots to be useless at stopping Covid, and dangerous to all and fatal to many.

Only the facts don't show that at all.

Another way to explain it: When determining efficacy, they a number of animals with naive immune systems, they vaccinate them and wait the appropriate interval, and then they deliberately expose then to the pathogen. Efficacy is determined based on the number who get sick despite vaccination. With a 95% efficacy, you would expect only about 5% to develop the disease.

Usually vaccine manufacturers aim for a percentage in the 80s though because numbers higher than that can cause immune system reactions as dangerous to the animal as the disease, and it's a bad look to kill or injure what you're trying to protect. A percentage in the 80s is usually enough to provide protection and disrupt transmission sufficiently.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Another way to explain it: When determining efficacy, they a number of animals with naive immune systems, they vaccinate them and wait the appropriate interval, and then they deliberately expose then to the pathogen. Efficacy is determined based on the number who get sick despite vaccination. With a 95% efficacy, you would expect only about 5% to develop the disease.

Usually vaccine manufacturers aim for a percentage in the 80s though because numbers higher than that can cause immune system reactions as dangerous to the animal as the disease, and it's a bad look to kill or injure what you're trying to protect. A percentage in the 80s is usually enough to provide protection and disrupt transmission sufficiently.

That isn't quite correct.

It isn't about the overall number who gets the disease but rather the reduction in cases.

So if you had 2 populations of 100 (pilot and control) and the 10 people got it in control group and 1 got it in the pilot group then that would be a 90% efficacy, not a 99%.

When a Technocrat tells you something the words can mean what ever they want them to mean ... you are not in a position to question them.

"Appeal To Authority" logical fallacies may not work in a debate class or an anonymous message board... but in the real world it works good enough for the Technocrat ... who is the authority.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You can't count reduction in cases. Even with naive immune systems, some will not get the disease. So you can never fully measure how many cases you would have had to accurately measure a reduction.

This is biology, not chemistry where everything is precise.

originally posted by: just4fun
When they say the vax has a 95% efficacy what does that mean?

Here's the current definition

the ability to produce a desired or intended result.

So what was the desired or intended result?

Vaccines before Covid have always been to stop transmission. Now it seems iike they have changed it to mean it keeps you from getting sicker.

They have actually said now it was never meant to stop transmission but then what did 95% efficacy mean?

I asked this in another thread and the Big Pharma drug pushers (you know who they are) wouldn't answer

I bet they ignore this too

Part 1

Before a drug or vaccine is approved by the FDA for human use, it has to go through clinical trials to show how safe or risky it is and how well or poorly it works. These clinical trials are randomized and double blind. Randomized means that the group of volunteers is divided (by the flip of a coin, or equivalent process) into one branch that gets the product being evaluated and the other branch gets a placebo (usually a saline solution). Double blind means that neither the volunteers nor the people administering the trials knows who is getting the treatment or the placebo, until after the trials are completed. Beyond that, there is also an effort to balance the makeup of the the two branches according to gender, age, and other variables so that there are no conspicuous differences in the makeup of the two branches or differences in how likely they are to get exposed to the virus in their everyday lives. In the case of the Moderna vaccine trials (as an example) the outcome they were looking for was how many of the volunteers who got the vaccine developed a detectable Covid19 illness during the course of the trials compared to how many who got the placebo developed detectable illness. That ratio is considered the efficacy.

Once the trials are over and vaccine starts being administered to the public, it is no longer randomized. How well it does in those circumstances is referred to as its effectiveness. For example, initially, the vaccine was given to high risk (i.e., older) people. Since that demographic generally has immune systems that don't perform as well as younger people, you wouldn't expect the vaccine to be as effective in preventing illness in that group as it would in a random sample of the population. Also, the virus continues to mutate so you wouldn't expect the vaccine to do as well against a mutated virus as it does against the original strain.

In short, efficacy is how well the vaccine did in a controlled clinical trial with a fixed number of subjects and a limited period of time and effectiveness is how well the vaccine does out in the public over an extended period of time. You would pretty much always expect the real world effectiveness to be lower than the experimental efficacy.

a reply to: just4fun

One of two things happened.

A. They really didn't know and the target was constantly moving.

B. They knew, but the $$ and power were more important so they just said what people wanted to hear

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: ScepticScot

No facts to support Pharma's claims. Indeed, 18 months in, the facts show the shots to be useless at stopping Covid, and dangerous to all and fatal to many.

Only the facts don't show that at all.

Yes, big pharma funded fact checkers don't show that at all. It would go against their bottom line.

Note: I had no issue with using the vaccine for people with major health issues, or older people whos immune system was starting to degrade, the majority of healthy young adults and children did not need a vaccine forced on them.

Natural immunity provides a longer lasting protection

A study released in JAMA Network Open by investigators at Providence, one of the largest health systems in the United States, and the University of Chicago, found that the level of protection granted by a prior symptomatic COVID-19 infection among unvaccinated individuals was on par with the level of protection provided by mRNA vaccines, with natural immunity providing a longer window of protection than mRNA vaccines. The study was conducted before the emergence of the highly transmissible omicron variant in the United States.

I just saw this and wasnt sure if it had made it on site yet, so here we go.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: just4fun
When they say the vax has a 95% efficacy what does that mean?

Here's the current definition

the ability to produce a desired or intended result.

So what was the desired or intended result?

Vaccines before Covid have always been to stop transmission. Now it seems iike they have changed it to mean it keeps you from getting sicker.

They have actually said now it was never meant to stop transmission but then what did 95% efficacy mean?

I asked this in another thread and the Big Pharma drug pushers (you know who they are) wouldn't answer

I bet they ignore this too

Vaccines have never only been about stopping onward transmission (that's usually a side benefit), and that would rarely if ever be an efficacy measure as not suitable for that type of study.

So, all of us old folk got the smallpox vaccines not only to stop transmission but also to lessen the disease?

Not so. Never in our lives before were we told vaccines didn't prevent diseases so this covid one is garbage. Even Bill Gates at Davos right now admitted such and said that they still want to create one that lasts a year.

You can't sell, never mind mandate, a medical procedure that exists on a sliding scale of efficacy from works excellent upon product roll out, to downgraded to compensate for the fact people are still getting the disease. It's simply bad business and purely unethical.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: just4fun

One of two things happened.

A. They really didn't know and the target was constantly moving.

B. They knew, but the $$ and power were more important so they just said what people wanted to hear

Correct, compare Pfizer's revenue in 2021 with their revenue in 2019. Now look at it for 2022.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: just4fun

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: just4fun
a reply to: ScepticScot

Vaccines have never only been about stopping onward transmission

Such a Bull S### lie. Where are all the breakthrough cases of small pox and polio?

And why are they called breakthrough cases?

What are they breaking through?

You will have to go tell all those anti vaxers who for years told us vaccines weren't about preventing transmission...

Now if you are going to call me a liar you can of course provide a link showing that vaccines were only ever about preventing transmission?

Why are they called Breakthrough cases?

What are they breaking through?

Where is your link supporting your claim I am lying?

It's the same lie that's been forced on us by government and pharmaceutical giants so perhaps you can't see the lie through all the propaganda.

Do you know people who got breakthrough cases of smallpox? I don't and most don't. That is the point. Smallpox vaccine did the job, covid not so much.

Since covid wasn't serious for most people, that's why people didn't want the vaccines. Transmission? Who cares, it was much like a cold and taking simple precautions, as per the flu, and there is little issue of transmission. We knew that from day one.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

You can't count reduction in cases. Even with naive immune systems, some will not get the disease. So you can never fully measure how many cases you would have had to accurately measure a reduction.

This is biology, not chemistry where everything is precise.

Natural imunity is one of the reasons why they measure it by reduction in cases.

If you counted as absolute cases the % wouldn't acount for things like that.

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: just4fun

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: just4fun
a reply to: ScepticScot

Vaccines have never only been about stopping onward transmission

Such a Bull S### lie. Where are all the breakthrough cases of small pox and polio?

And why are they called breakthrough cases?

What are they breaking through?

You will have to go tell all those anti vaxers who for years told us vaccines weren't about preventing transmission...

Now if you are going to call me a liar you can of course provide a link showing that vaccines were only ever about preventing transmission?

Why are they called Breakthrough cases?

What are they breaking through?

Where is your link supporting your claim I am lying?

It's the same lie that's been forced on us by government and pharmaceutical giants so perhaps you can't see the lie through all the propaganda.

Do you know people who got breakthrough cases of smallpox? I don't and most don't. That is the point. Smallpox vaccine did the job, covid not so much.

Since covid wasn't serious for most people, that's why people didn't want the vaccines. Transmission? Who cares, it was much like a cold and taking simple precautions, as per the flu, and there is little issue of transmission. We knew that from day one.

FLU vaccines ranges from about 30 to 60 % effective.

A vaccine doesn't need to be 100% effective to be beneficial.

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: just4fun
When they say the vax has a 95% efficacy what does that mean?

Here's the current definition

the ability to produce a desired or intended result.

So what was the desired or intended result?

Vaccines before Covid have always been to stop transmission. Now it seems iike they have changed it to mean it keeps you from getting sicker.

They have actually said now it was never meant to stop transmission but then what did 95% efficacy mean?

I asked this in another thread and the Big Pharma drug pushers (you know who they are) wouldn't answer

I bet they ignore this too

Vaccines have never only been about stopping onward transmission (that's usually a side benefit), and that would rarely if ever be an efficacy measure as not suitable for that type of study.

So, all of us old folk got the smallpox vaccines not only to stop transmission but also to lessen the disease?

Not so. Never in our lives before were we told vaccines didn't prevent diseases so this covid one is garbage. Even Bill Gates at Davos right now admitted such and said that they still want to create one that lasts a year.

You can't sell, never mind mandate, a medical procedure that exists on a sliding scale of efficacy from works excellent upon product roll out, to downgraded to compensate for the fact people are still getting the disease. It's simply bad business and purely unethical.

People got the smallpox vaccine to prevent then geting smallpox.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: ScepticScot

No facts to support Pharma's claims. Indeed, 18 months in, the facts show the shots to be useless at stopping Covid, and dangerous to all and fatal to many.

Only the facts don't show that at all.

Yes, big pharma funded fact checkers don't show that at all. It would go against their bottom line.

Any conspiracy theory can be justified by another one.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Do you actually believe the BS you peddle?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

Do you actually believe the BS you peddle?

Feel free to show where anything I have said is incorrect and we can discuss, otherwise if you don't have anything to actually contribute to the topic...

a reply to: ScepticScot

Administration of covid vaccines in the UK started on 8th December 2020. This coincides with the largest increase in Covid hospital admissions over the following 4 weeks, peaking on 11th January with almost 4000 hospital admissions per day. The peak of daily vaccination numbers also matches the peak in Covid related deaths.

Seems the clinical trials don't match real world data.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: ScepticScot

No facts to support Pharma's claims. Indeed, 18 months in, the facts show the shots to be useless at stopping Covid, and dangerous to all and fatal to many.

Only the facts don't show that at all.

Yes, big pharma funded fact checkers don't show that at all. It would go against their bottom line.

Any conspiracy theory can be justified by another one.

Yes, anything you don't agree with is a conspiracy theory.

Are you saying the fact checkers aren't funded by big pharma? Do you want to get into that argument?

Also I know someone is 100% brainwashed when they use the terms "conspiracy theorist" or "anti vaxx" to attempt to debate someone. Use those terms immediately disqualifies you.