Conspiracy theories

[EFLImpudence]

Even if vaccine is 95% effective how can this be?

"Up to 99% of Covid-19 hospitalisations and deaths could be avoided with the first wave of vaccinations, England's deputy chief medical officer Prof Jonathan Van-Tam has said."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55169799

 

[ellal]

Even if vaccine is 95% effective how can this be?

"Up to 99% of Covid-19 hospitalisations and deaths could be avoided with the first wave of vaccinations, England's deputy chief medical officer Prof Jonathan Van-Tam has said."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55169799

Because the death rate is currently only 1% anyway apparently...

Thus a vast expenditure towards private companies must be 'justified'

 

[EFLImpudence]

Even so - 95% of 1% is not 99%.

 

[Trazor]

Even if vaccine is 95% effective how can this be?

"Up to 99% of Covid-19 hospitalisations and deaths could be avoided with the first wave of vaccinations, England's deputy chief medical officer Prof Jonathan Van-Tam has said."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55169799

Only 1 in the trials became seriously ill, whilst 8 others had mild symptoms, So 1 in 20,000 for hospitalisation.

20,000 received a placebo, 164 people who received it fell ill, nine severely.

 

[Trazor]

Because the death rate is currently only 1% anyway apparently.

Apparently not. The latest figures on the Worldometer website.............https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

This shows 65,075,137 cases with 1,503,622 deaths, that's a 2.31% death rate.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Only 1 in the trials became seriously ill, whilst 8 others had mild symptoms, So 1 in 20,000 for hospitalisation.
20,000 received a placebo, 164 people who received it fell ill, nine severely.

So, which of those numbers results in 99% reduction in what would have been?

 

[Trazor]

So, which of those numbers results in 99% reduction in what would have been?

It's not rocket science 1 in 20000 is .005%, way below the 1% reduction you are looking for.

This assumes a mass roll out of the vaccine.

 

[EddieM]

Because the death rate is currently only 1% anyway apparently...

Thus a vast expenditure towards private companies must be 'justified'

1% maybe across all age ranges but over 85's are ~65 times more likely to succumb, or about a 65% fatality rate, so no wonder they are keen on a vaccine, which no doubt you believe will probably kill them, but then again you probably don't think they're worth saving anyway, so it's win win for you.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's not rocket science 1 in 20000 is .005%, way below the 1% reduction you are looking for.

...but the vaccine is said to be (only) 95% effective.
Plus you cannot work out the figure from 20,000 as the vast majority of them would not get the virus anyway.

This assumes a mass roll out of the vaccine.

Yet he quoted that figure was after the first wave of vaccinations.

Only 1 in the trials became seriously ill, whilst 8 others had mild symptoms, So 1 in 20,000 for hospitalisation.
20,000 received a placebo, 164 people who received it fell ill, nine severely.

So, with the vaccination 10 would be seriously ill instead of 18 without it out of 40,000.

Is that a reduction of 99%? Not to mention all those who will not yet have had the vaccination in the first wave.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'll amend that.

So, with the vaccination 1 was seriously ill instead of 9 without it.

Is that a reduction of 99%? Not to mention all those who will not yet have had the vaccination in the first wave.

 

[IT Minion]

I'll amend that.

So, with the vaccination 1 was seriously ill instead of 9 without it.

Is that a reduction of 99%? Not to mention all those who will not yet have had the vaccination in the first wave.

The two numbers aren't that tightly linked. You've missed an intermediate number which is that most people who get Covid-19 don't go to hospital.

The results from the trials show all the vaccines are good at preventing serious illness. That means that it's effectively chopping off the worst cases, but leaving a few miler ones. (What it's really doing is making all the infections less dangerous so what would have been a dangerous infection is instead asymptomatic or very mild, or so mild it wouldn't even be picked up by testing).

 

[IT Minion]

but the vaccine is said to be (only) 95% effective

Only?

50% was agreed to be a useful level of protection. 95% is bloody brilliant.

 

[Trazor]

So, with the vaccination 10 would be seriously ill instead of 18 without it out of 40,000.
.

No, of the 20,000 who received the vaccine only one became seriously ill, so one would presume two out of 40,000 would.

This is a remarkable outcome compared to other vaccines.

 

[Ihavenojob]

No, of the 20,000 who received the vaccine only one became seriously ill, so one would presume two out of 40,000 would.

This is a remarkable outcome compared to other vaccines.

Who are these test participants, are they of a certain age,race,sex, ? Are they healthy, have any pregnant women had the vaccine and gone full term ? Has fertility been tested in participants ?. Too many variables to be taken into account in such a short term.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Please reread what Van-Tam said.

No, of the 20,000 who received the vaccine only one became seriously ill, so one would presume two out of 40,000 would.

Ok, then 2 instead of 18. Do you know that is the same ratio as 1 and 9?

This is a remarkable outcome compared to other vaccines.

Not saying it is not remarkable, but my only point was -

FFS it is not a 99% reduction.