What does efficacy mean

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I've always wondered, do they offer this high level of protection after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th "booster"?

originally posted by: Grenade
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.

It also coincides with the expected seasonal peak of cases, only a tiny number of people would have received their vaccination and it isn't effective immediately.

So provides no evidence one way or the other about vaccine effectiveness.

a reply to: ScepticScot

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?

Well, you seem like a person who is more than willing to listen to the CDC's every word, so here you go. This is taken straight from the war pig's own mouth...

Efficacy rate:
A measure used to describe how good a vaccine is at preventing disease.

CDC Glossary of Terms

You will also be pleased to know they define what a vaccine is for you too!

Vaccine:
A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or fractions thereof administered to induce immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae. Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B); others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined (e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses).

Hmm... seems the people who are speaking publicly for the CDC need to let the IT guys know they are still using the old definitions in the glossary

a reply to: ScepticScot

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

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.

Feel free to provide any actual evidence of your claims.

originally posted by: andr3w68
a reply to: ScepticScot

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?

Well, you seem like a person who is more than willing to listen to the CDC's every word, so here you go. This is taken straight from the war pig's own mouth...

Efficacy rate:
A measure used to describe how good a vaccine is at preventing disease.

CDC Glossary of Terms

You will also be pleased to know they define what a vaccine is for you too!

Vaccine:
A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or fractions thereof administered to induce immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae. Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B); others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined (e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses).

Hmm... seems the people who are speaking publicly for the CDC need to let the IT guys know they are still using the old definitions in the glossary

From that definition of efficacy tell me how it's measured

a reply to: ScepticScot

www.healthdata.org...



Cherry picking numbers from this table by any chance?

Now that 80%+ of the UK population is double vaccinated shouldn't we see a major reduction in hospital admissions and deaths? A roughly 75% reduction based on your claims.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.healthdata.org...

Cherry picking numbers from this table by any chance?

? How does that table relates to what I posted?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Can a breakthrough case infect others?

Yes or no.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: ScepticScot

Can a breakthrough case infect others?

Yes or no.

Yes. And?

www.miamiherald.com...

Social media is calling bluff on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for modifying its definition of the words “vaccine” and “vaccination” on its website. Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

Read more at: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

a reply to: ScepticScot



Sorry, you still here.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You said breakthrough cases are not about transmission.

So if a breakthrough case can transmit the disease just as a normal case, you contradicted yourself.

Or is that called a breakthrough-transmission?

Is it, yes or no?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

Sorry, you still here.

Since you were replying to me whats your point?

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: ScepticScot

You said breakthrough cases are not about transmission.

So if a breakthrough case can transmit the disease just as a normal case, you contradicted yourself.

Or is that called a breakthrough-transmission?

Is it, yes or no?

Breaktrough cases are not a measure of onward transmission.

Any case can result in onward transmission.

a reply to: ScepticScot

That your constant regurgitation of MSM BS is tiresome.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I provided proof you were wrong, like you requested. Then, instead of acknowledging it, you asked another question to divert attention. Good ploy, however its not going to work.

Using the definition they provide, efficacy would be a measure of difference between a control group rate of infection with no treatment, and a vaccine group rate of infection after receiving the treatment.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

That your constant regurgitation of MSM BS is tiresome.

Still nothing to contribute to the topic then.

Says it all.

originally posted by: andr3w68
a reply to: ScepticScot

I provided proof you were wrong, like you requested. Then, instead of acknowledging it, you asked another question to divert attention. Good ploy, however its not going to work.

Using the definition they provide, efficacy would be a measure of difference between a control group rate of infection with no treatment, and a vaccine group rate of infection after receiving the treatment.

That almost exactly the definition I gave.

a reply to: ScepticScot

www.israelnationalnews.com...

Referenced Study:

www.medrxiv.org...

"Trial participants who were given the placebo, rather than the vaccine, and became infected during the trial were found to have significantly higher levels of the neutralizing anti-nucleocapsid antibodies than vaccinated participants who had comparable viral loads.

Approximately 60% of participants from the placebo cohort who experienced very mild infection, with low viral loads, were found to have anti-nucleocapsid antibodies, compared to roughly 10% of vaccinated subjects.

Among those with higher viral loads – qualifying as mild cases, rather than very mild – 71% of the unvaccinated developed anti-nucleocapsid antibodies, compared to just 15% of those in the vaccine group.

Of all unvaccinated subjects who had been diagnosed with the virus during the trial, nearly all (93%) had measurable levels of anti-nucleocapsid antibodies, compared to less than half (40%) of those in the vaccine cohort.

“While an increase in seroreversion cannot be ruled out, given the short time frame the more likely explanation is a vaccine-induced reduction in seroconversion,” researchers wrote, suggesting that trial participants given the vaccine had reduced levels of the anti-nucleocapsid antibodies as a direct result of the vaccine’s narrow focus on the spike protein.

The researchers also hinted that the diminished anti-nucleocapsid antibody response among the vaccinated could lead to undercounting of breakthrough cases, when measured by antibody sampling."

Any thoughts?