95% effective vaccine, what does that mean

[imperiouskitten]

vaccines are not 100% effective, none of them are oh god why am i even explaining this shit to you turd

[Topgunben]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It means you're not an epidemiologist, virologist, or expert on infectious disease.

Seriously, the answers to the questions you've asked have been provided over and over again ever since Trumptards made COVID and wearing masks some insane political issue.

Turn off OAN and read an article in a scientific journal or something...

Never claimed I was any of those.

You also failed to answered my question, which means you are nothing but an old pompous windbag.

[imperiouskitten]

i don't believe it, ur not axeing in goodfaith

[imperiouskitten]

no vaxxes are 100% effective, it's just when you vaxx all with 90% efficacy you reduce the transmission rate below the threshold where it reproduces and the thing dies out.

[Topgunben]

Originally Posted by douglas1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trust the science, because science always says 1 thing and there is never conflicting science or conflicting scientific conclusions, especially with a virus thats not even a year old that we still barely understand. We do however understand the rate of death relative to the rate of infection and its miniscule and not even remotely close to what was initially projected, yet we are now imposing even more restrictions on people's lives. Sweden didn't lock down at all btw, and there are still swedes. And their economy isn't in the dogshit zone.

We will finally be safe, once we rid ourselves of the incredibly non-lethal virus that is so non-lethal you often can't tell that you even have it. Sacrifices must be made in the meantime, sorry [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh and even the WHO is saying more lockdowns are a bad idea and didn't do much to prevent it spreading. Why don't you just following the science, huh mister??

+1.

Doctor Gore predicted the calamities that would befall the earth in the scientific journal of Inconvenient Truths. I am thankful for such accurate science and analysis. Without it I would be utterly lost.

[Woke Locc]

It means 90% of they/thems who are vaccinated won't get the disease subsequently by other means

U trollin tho 🤪

[Trexller]

you'll have to chain me down in order to inject me with the bill gates nanobot genetic engineering "vaccine"

[hobart]

Originally Posted by douglas1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trust the science, because science always says 1 thing and there is never conflicting science or conflicting scientific conclusions, especially with a virus thats not even a year old that we still barely understand. We do however understand the rate of death relative to the rate of infection and its miniscule and not even remotely close to what was initially projected, yet we are now imposing even more restrictions on people's lives. Sweden didn't lock down at all btw, and there are still swedes. And their economy isn't in the dogshit zone.

We will finally be safe, once we rid ourselves of the incredibly non-lethal virus that is so non-lethal you often can't tell that you even have it. Sacrifices must be made in the meantime, sorry [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh and even the WHO is saying more lockdowns are a bad idea and didn't do much to prevent it spreading. Why don't you just following the science, huh mister??

It's like talking to a wall... All answered.

There's no conflicting science. The vast majority specialists are in agreement. One or two outliers is not a lack of consensus.

And it's not just about how deadly a virus is. It's the cumulative profile of the virus and its potential impact on our healthcare system. Look at what happened in New York -- lethality went up dramatically once the system got overwhelmed and went back down once they got through that wave.

And the economic angle is a straw man. There is huge range between lock it down forever and YOLO. The man who blows his brains out because he loses his house, his savings, or his livelihood over economic impacts from the COVID restrictions is every bit as much a COVID death as the 97 year man with stage 4 lung cancer who contracts COVID and dies.

I deal with this on a daily basis. As we're about to have tenants shut down their restaurants, bars, fitness studios, etc for a second (or third) time, I can't help but wonder if we'd be in this mess if people would just listen to normal scientists, wear a fucking mask, wash their hands, and keep their distance when they can... It's not a big ask.

[douglas1999]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's like talking to a wall... All answered.

There's no conflicting science. The vast majority specialists are in agreement. One or two outliers is not a lack of consensus.

And it's not just about how deadly a virus is. It's the cumulative profile of the virus and its potential impact on our healthcare system. Look at what happened in New York -- lethality went up dramatically once the system got overwhelmed and went back down once they got through that wave.

And the economic angle is a straw man. There is huge range between lock it down forever and YOLO. The man who blows his brains out because he loses his house, his savings, or his livelihood over economic impacts from the COVID restrictions is every bit as much a COVID death as the 97 year man with stage 4 lung cancer who contracts COVID and dies.

I deal with this on a daily basis. As we're about to have tenants shut down their restaurants, bars, fitness studios, etc for a second (or third) time, I can't help but wonder if we'd be in this mess if people would just listen to normal scientists, wear a fucking mask, wash their hands, and keep their distance when they can... It's not a big ask.

No, you're not talking to a wall, you're giving bad simple answers and expecting people to just unquestioningly accept them.

New york happened very early on, when we barely understood how to treat it. We were still freaking out about ventillators back then, and it turns out ventillators are not an ideal therapy. Almost everyone put on ventillators ended up dying anyway. And we were never even close to running out of them. And the hospitals were never overwhelmed, that navy medical ship didn't even fill like 2% of rooms and the field hospitals were taken down after like a month after barely being used. I agree, the concern was always overwhelming our medical infrastructure, and it never happened.

As for people blowing their brains out counting as a covid death, yes I agree with that. But I have a feeling you're operating under this tautology where any collateral effects mean we need to lock down MORE, and that we aren't doing a good enough job, and everything would be fine. No, people blowing their brains out because they lose everything is a direct result of lockdowns.

And how do you reconcile the notion that almost every expert agrees with this prescription, when as I just pointed out, the WHO themselves are now saying lockdowns barely do any good, most likely do more harm than good, and is advising against continuing them. Initially, they were saying to lock everything down, now they are not.

And I do not have a problem wearing a mask at all, what I have a problem with are these draconian lockdowns destroying economies. It makes much more sense to simply protect and quarantine the vulnerable (the elderly and people with severe diabetes or heart conditions) and allow the healthy and young to go about their lives as normal. This would mitigate the economic impact while protecting the vulnerable. And, once again, even the vulnerable overwhelmingly survive the infection. It's like 94% for people over 80 now, with the therapies we've developed since it began in Februrary.

[Woke Locc]

Originally Posted by douglas1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, you're not talking to a wall, you're giving bad simple answers and expecting people to just unquestioningly accept them.

New york happened very early on, when we barely understood how to treat it. We were still freaking out about ventillators back then, and it turns out ventillators are not an ideal therapy. Almost everyone put on ventillators ended up dying anyway. And we were never even close to running out of them. And the hospitals were never overwhelmed, that navy medical ship didn't even fill like 2% of rooms and the field hospitals were taken down after like a month after barely being used. I agree, the concern was always overwhelming our medical infrastructure, and it never happened.

As for people blowing their brains out counting as a covid death, yes I agree with that. But I have a feeling you're operating under this tautology where any collateral effects mean we need to lock down MORE, and that we aren't doing a good enough job, and everything would be fine. No, people blowing their brains out because they lose everything is a direct result of lockdowns.

And how do you reconcile the notion that almost every expert agrees with this prescription, when as I just pointed out, the WHO themselves are now saying lockdowns barely do any good, most likely do more harm than good, and is advising against continuing them. Initially, they were saying to lock everything down, now they are not.

And I do not have a problem wearing a mask at all, what I have a problem with are these draconian lockdowns destroying economies. It makes much more sense to simply protect and quarantine the vulnerable (the elderly and people with severe diabetes or heart conditions) and allow the healthy and young to go about their lives as normal. This would mitigate the economic impact while protecting the vulnerable. And, once again, even the vulnerable overwhelmingly survive the infection. It's like 94% for people over 80 now, with the therapies we've developed since it began in Februrary.

Separating people into minorities is how you get people killed, Double Hitler