32 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

Yes but a very small % of those 84 million have come in contact with the virus so we don't know how effective it is yet

JFC. Dude, this is insane. Your standard for knowing real-world efficacy with absolute certainty is beyond ridiculous. It's never been anything other than an inference based on double blinded trial data which is the best data we have. Nothing short of challenge trials will get us any closer, and major ethical issues aside, even then you'd likely still complain about the accuracy of the inference. We can speculate on the potential for exposure just like we always have, which is based on the trials conducted to date. None of the trials were set up in such a way as to quantify exposure risk to the level you're demanding because that's not how vaccine development works. It would introduce additional variables when the aim of the trial is to reduce all variables between control and treatment groups. In the real world, it's just as simple, all unvaccinated people are analogous to the control from phase III trials, and all vaccinated people are analogous to the treatment arm. The 95% efficacy number is for symptomatic disease, and "near" 100% number is for severe disease. Both numbers are still valid based on everything we know.  

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

JFC. Dude, this is insane. Your standard for knowing real-world efficacy with absolute certainty is beyond ridiculous. It's never been anything other than an inference based on double blinded trial data which is the best data we have. Nothing short of challenge trials will get us any closer, and major ethical issues aside, even then you'd likely still complain about the accuracy of the inference. We can speculate on the potential for exposure just like we always have, which is based on the trials conducted to date. None of the trials were set up in such a way as to quantify exposure risk to the level you're demanding because that's not how vaccine development works. It would introduce additional variables when the aim of the try is to reduce all variables between control and treatment groups. In the real world, it's just as simple, all unvaccinated people are analogous to the control from phase III trials, and all vaccinated people are analogous to the treatment arm. The 95% efficacy number is for symptomatic disease, and "near" 100% number is for severe disease. Both numbers are still valid based on everything we know.  

C'mon dude. We don't know if its effective unless we take all 84 million people and put them in a room with infected people. And have them lick every person. Then see how many get sick. That clearly reflects the real world...

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

JFC. Dude, this is insane. Your standard for knowing real-world efficacy with absolute certainty is beyond ridiculous. It's never been anything other than an inference based on double blinded trial data which is the best data we have. Nothing short of challenge trials will get us any closer, and major ethical issues aside, even then you'd likely still complain about the accuracy of the inference. We can speculate on the potential for exposure just like we always have, which is based on the trials conducted to date. None of the trials were set up in such a way as to quantify exposure risk to the level you're demanding because that's not how vaccine development works. It would introduce additional variables when the aim of the trial is to reduce all variables between control and treatment groups. In the real world, it's just as simple, all unvaccinated people are analogous to the control from phase III trials, and all vaccinated people are analogous to the treatment arm. The 95% efficacy number is for symptomatic disease, and "near" 100% number is for severe disease. Both numbers are still valid based on everything we know.  

I understand what you are saying, my point is that saying 6000 out of 84 million is misleading that is all

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

C'mon dude. We don't know if its effective unless we take all 84 million people and put them in a room with infected people. And have them lick every person. Then see how many get sick. That clearly reflects the real world...

Excellent point

3 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

I understand what you are saying, my point is that saying 6000 out of 84 million is misleading that is all

Maybe without any context whatsoever, but it's not really misleading given the proper context and if you understand how the efficacy numbers were derived. If you see 95% efficacy against symptomatic disease and you interpret that as "I'll be 100% protected against covid if I get the vaccine." then the only thing misleading is your own thought process. 

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Maybe without any context whatsoever, but it's not really misleading given the proper context and if you understand how the efficacy numbers were derived. If you see 95% efficacy against symptomatic disease and you interpret that as "I'll be 100% protected against covid if I get the vaccine." then the only thing misleading is your own thought process. 

Ok how many people reading these articles understand that? There is no context given

6 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

I understand what you are saying, my point is that saying 6000 out of 84 million is misleading that is all

NO. IT. ISN'T.

Your standard of looking at the number infected (numerator) over the number of vaccinated people exposed to the virus (denominator) is completely insane because most people won't be exposed to the virus at all. You'd have some kind of argument if you said that we need to see what happens when mitigation efforts are further relaxed, but then there will be more vaccinated people and fewer infected people. 

That's the point -- effectiveness is measured this way because it reflects effectiveness in the real world where you have to (a) being exposed and (b) get sick. 

OK, now back to being upset at myself for feeding the troll.

Just now, Joe Shades 73 said:

Ok how many people reading these articles understand that? There is no context given

Other people? Dude, you clearly don't understand it when you say ish like "the vaccines may not be very effective". 

Managed to bump my first dose up to May 5th since the hospital by my house opened a bunch of slots.  Tacos, tequila and Microsoft!

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Other people? Dude, you clearly don't understand it when you say ish like "the vaccines may not be very effective". 

Well if I don't understand what about the millions that are not lucky enough to get the context? they just think they are at no risk when that is not true

Yeah I am being negative for no reason

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/04/19/herd-immunity-us-likely-impossible-but-vaccines-can-control-covid/7139419002/

13 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

Well if I don't understand what about the millions that are not lucky enough to get the context? they just think there re at no risk whene that is not true

Once again, if someone hears 95% efficacy and thinks it means there's literally no risk, then they're stupid. 

The thing is, nobody is here saying this, but you are here and you keep implying the vaccines "aren't that effective". So naturally the focus is gonna be on educating you rather than them. So again I'll reiterate, the real world data we have so far is very close to the trial data released in November. There were 8 confirmed cases in pfizer's phase III treatment group and 168 confirmed cases in the control group. Like I said, the goal was to control for and/or limit all other factors so that we can simply compare 8 to 168. Just over 20k participants in each group, so confidence was also fairly solid. The number isn't a bullseye, but it's been pretty F'ing close. 

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Once again, if someone hears 95% efficacy and thinks it means there's literally no risk, then they're stupid. 

The thing is, nobody is here saying this, but you are here and you keep implying the vaccines "aren't that effective". So naturally the focus is gonna be on educating you rather than them. So again I'll reiterate, the real world data we have so far is very close to the trial data released in November. There were 8 confirmed cases in pfizer's phase III treatment group and 168 confirmed cases in the control group. Like I said, the goal was to control for and/or limit all other factors so that we can simply divide 8 by 168. Just over 20k participants in each group, so confidence was also fairly solid. The number isn't a bullseye, but it's been pretty F'ing close. 

There is a world beyond this forum who read these articles without context

3 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

There is a world beyond this forum who read these articles without context

Cool, take it up with them.

9 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

Yeah I am being negative for no reason

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/04/19/herd-immunity-us-likely-impossible-but-vaccines-can-control-covid/7139419002/

The article makes a pretty big assumption that the resistance provided by the vaccine won't last long term.  It may very well not but we have no real way of knowing that currently given how new everything is.  Now its assumption about there being lots of idiots out there who refuse to get vaccinated and variants with increased transmissibility increasing the threshold needed to gain herd immunity, yeah that I buy.  But the duration of immunity stuff seems a smidge premature still.

8 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

Yeah I am being negative for no reason

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/04/19/herd-immunity-us-likely-impossible-but-vaccines-can-control-covid/7139419002/

Joe Sunshine: "The articles can't be trusted because they don't provide enough context!"

Also Joe Sunshine: "Hey everyone look at these articles that say we're all gonna die!"

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Joe Sunshine: "The articles can't be trusted because they don't provide enough context!"

Also Joe Sunshine: "Hey everyone look at these articles that say we're all gonna die!"

There was context in the article I posted, saying 6000 out of 84 million vaccinated have gotten covid is zero context

31 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

There was context in the article I posted, saying 6000 out of 84 million vaccinated have gotten covid is zero context

Now make this post again and write it as a percentage.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Now make this post again and write it as a percentage.

I am done on this point

Just now, Joe Shades 73 said:

I am done on this point

I might be late to this latest beatdown, but I figured I'd get in a shot while I could 

I definitely think this is going to get worse again before it gets better, but we'll get there.

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I definitely think this is going to get worse again before it gets better, but we'll get there.

Don't know about other states but looks like we might be finally bending the curve here in MI. If so, then I suspect NY and a couple other UK variant hit states aren't far behind, which means nationally we might be looking at sub 50k daily cases in the next few weeks.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Don't know about other states but looks like we might be finally bending the curve here in MI. If so, then I suspect NY and a couple other UK variant hit states aren't far behind, which means nationally we might be looking at sub 50k daily cases in the next few weeks.

Agreed all is well

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Don't know about other states but looks like we might be finally bending the curve here in MI. If so, then I suspect NY and a couple other UK variant hit states aren't far behind, which means nationally we might be looking at sub 50k daily cases in the next few weeks.

PA is steady but still high with the avg. close to 5k. I'm wondeirng if we'll see another surge or mini-surge in a few weeks, though, due to J&J dropping out of the supply chain.

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

PA is steady but still high with the avg. close to 5k. I'm wondeirng if we'll see another surge or mini-surge in a few weeks, though, due to J&J dropping out of the supply chain.

Yes