You obviously have a Snopes and a Politifact subscription Tuchodi, you copy paste Politifact and Snopes links the good trained monkey you are.
Denying the CDC director and Fauci didn’t promise highly efficacious, 100p efficacy makes you look like a deranged liar.
Fauci and the CDC director are on camera saying “almost 100p efficacious at prevent death and severe disease” and “the vaccinated don’t carry the virus”
Keep denying and keep lying. No one here takes you seriously and everyone sees you are an uneducated monkey, copy pasting content you admitted yourself you don’t have the ability to understand
Only abstinence is 100% effective at stopping infection. But we can't abstain from breathing. We could get close if we were 24/7 in respirators, but this isn't the 12 monkeys plague.
Either of these will get you around paywalls. 95% was the initial claim and was considered good enough that mandates were justified. 95% is well within the threshold for herd immunity at 70% uptake and it seems it actually was with the Wuhan strain, as it's gone extinct. For herd immunity, you need to remove enough vectors to collapse the R0 of a given strain. This either comes about naturally, behaviourally, or is induced through vaccination/prophylaxis/treatment.
For other people's benefit since you seem to give zero shits about efficacy as they pertain to vaccine mandates:
With the delta variant, efficacy fell to 60-80%. Even at the high end, 20% is four times greater than 5%. At the low end, 40% is eight times greater than 5%. So, if it's equally infectious as the origin strain, and we need to remove 70% of vectors, then @80% efficacy we're looking at (70% * .95%)/80% = 83% vaccination rate to stop delta at the high efficacy end or (70% * .95%)/60% = 110% vaccination rate to stop delta at the low efficacy end.
So 83% to 110% of the population needs to be vaccinated to eradicate delta. Adjust the number down for the ratio of naturally immune.
With omicron, efficacy falls to 5-15% for fully vaccinated people at 6 months. The herd immunity threshold is also going to be higher because it's an upper respiratory virus. Let's be generous say that doubling R0 means we only have to halve the # of vectors in the herd immunity equation. So we had 30% or so being infectious = covid just dies. Half of 30% is 15%. We need to remove 85% of people as vectors.
OK. So full vaccination at the high end provides 15% protection against symptomatic infection at the high end. (85% * .95%)/15% = 538% of the population needs to be fully vaccinated to stop the spread. OK that's impossible, so calculating the low end isn't worth it.
But for 2-12 weeks after a third dose, someone has 60-80% protection against infection. So let's see if we can get that number to 100% to eradicate the omicron variant.
(85% * .95%)/80% = 101%
We can sort of maybe eradiate omicron if 100% of the population is perpetually kept at 2-12 weeks since the third dose and it turns out the highest estimates of efficacy for this group are true. They're actually run down for weeks 0-2 though, so 16.667% of the time, people are going to need to be in a hard quarantine.
^^^
This is what you'd have to mandate, by the numbers, to eradicate COVID-19. Assuming naturally immunity doesn't exist.
Just saying that vaccine efficacy has become moot as far as eradication goes and Canada is now counting on blindly blundering out of COVID-19 in a borderline retarded fugue because we can't allow ourselves to understand how things actually work because the preached to masses of hysterical bigots will melt down when release comes from reasons that are forbidden to explain.
As for mandates, it's hard to imagine them going on much longer, and this discussion thread is actually about spreading misinformation about a persistent lie that covid vaccines were supposed to guarantee 100% protection from the virus.
It’s worth repeating, but it so obviously went way over your head.
So I’ll post what he said again.
“For other people's benefit since you seem to give zero shits about efficacy as they pertain to vaccine mandates: With the delta variant, efficacy fell to 60-80%. Even at the high end, 20% is four times greater than 5%. At the low end, 40% is eight times greater than 5%. So, if it's equally infectious as the origin strain, and we need to remove 70% of vectors, then @80% efficacy we're looking at (70% * .95%)/80% = 83% vaccination rate to stop delta at the high efficacy end or (70% * .95%)/60% = 110% vaccination rate to stop delta at the low efficacy end.
So 83% to 110% of the population needs to be vaccinated to eradicate delta. Adjust the number down for the ratio of naturally immune.
With omicron, efficacy falls to 5-15% for fully vaccinated people at 6 months. The herd immunity threshold is also going to be higher because it's an upper respiratory virus. Let's be generous say that doubling R0 means we only have to halve the # of vectors in the herd immunity equation. So we had 30% or so being infectious = covid just dies. Half of 30% is 15%. We need to remove 85% of people as vectors.
OK. So full vaccination at the high end provides 15% protection against symptomatic infection at the high end. (85% * .95%)/15% = 538% of the population needs to be fully vaccinated to stop the spread. OK that's impossible, so calculating the low end isn't worth it.
But for 2-12 weeks after a third dose, someone has 60-80% protection against infection. So let's see if we can get that number to 100% to eradicate the omicron variant. (85% * .95%)/80% = 101% We can sort of maybe eradiate omicron if 100% of the population is perpetually kept at 2-12 weeks since the third dose and it turns out the highest estimates of efficacy for this group are true. They're actually run down for weeks 0-2 though, so 16.667% of the time, people are going to need to be in a hard quarantine. ^^^This is what you'd have to mandate, by the numbers, to eradicate COVID-19. Assuming naturally immunity doesn't exist.
Just saying that vaccine efficacy has become moot as far as eradication goes and Canada is now counting on blindly blundering out of COVID-19 in a borderline retarded fugue because we can't allow ourselves to understand how things actually work because the preached to masses of hysterical bigots will melt down when release comes from reasons that are forbidden to explain.”
I dumbed it down for you, and put in bold characters the only words you’ll be able to understand. Interestingly, it’s also the only ones that apply to you.
I don't have much to say about the mandates other than I see them as a common sense response to a communicable disease rather than a tyrannical assault on individual freedoms. I'm OK with erring on the side of caution during a global pandemic.
Your original picture with the green circle around the 1 is a deliberate attempt at misdirection, given that the definition of "unknown" is that the names don't show up on the list of people known to be vaccinated.
I don't have a subscription to the New York Times.
This is a discussion about pretending the vaccines should be 100% effective at stopping infection.
You obviously have a Snopes and a Politifact subscription Tuchodi, you copy paste Politifact and Snopes links the good trained monkey you are.
Denying the CDC director and Fauci didn’t promise highly efficacious, 100p efficacy makes you look like a deranged liar.
Fauci and the CDC director are on camera saying “almost 100p efficacious at prevent death and severe disease” and “the vaccinated don’t carry the virus”
Keep denying and keep lying. No one here takes you seriously and everyone sees you are an uneducated monkey, copy pasting content you admitted yourself you don’t have the ability to understand
You are full of claims you can't back up.
They are worthless.
No one promised that the vaccines would provide 100% protection.
You’re uneducated opinion is noted.
My opinion is that health professionals know what they're talking about, and anonymous trolls who can't support their opinions don't.
Only abstinence is 100% effective at stopping infection. But we can't abstain from breathing. We could get close if we were 24/7 in respirators, but this isn't the 12 monkeys plague.
https://archive.ph/ https://12ft.io/
Either of these will get you around paywalls. 95% was the initial claim and was considered good enough that mandates were justified. 95% is well within the threshold for herd immunity at 70% uptake and it seems it actually was with the Wuhan strain, as it's gone extinct. For herd immunity, you need to remove enough vectors to collapse the R0 of a given strain. This either comes about naturally, behaviourally, or is induced through vaccination/prophylaxis/treatment.
For other people's benefit since you seem to give zero shits about efficacy as they pertain to vaccine mandates:
With the delta variant, efficacy fell to 60-80%. Even at the high end, 20% is four times greater than 5%. At the low end, 40% is eight times greater than 5%. So, if it's equally infectious as the origin strain, and we need to remove 70% of vectors, then @80% efficacy we're looking at (70% * .95%)/80% = 83% vaccination rate to stop delta at the high efficacy end or (70% * .95%)/60% = 110% vaccination rate to stop delta at the low efficacy end.
So 83% to 110% of the population needs to be vaccinated to eradicate delta. Adjust the number down for the ratio of naturally immune.
With omicron, efficacy falls to 5-15% for fully vaccinated people at 6 months. The herd immunity threshold is also going to be higher because it's an upper respiratory virus. Let's be generous say that doubling R0 means we only have to halve the # of vectors in the herd immunity equation. So we had 30% or so being infectious = covid just dies. Half of 30% is 15%. We need to remove 85% of people as vectors.
OK. So full vaccination at the high end provides 15% protection against symptomatic infection at the high end. (85% * .95%)/15% = 538% of the population needs to be fully vaccinated to stop the spread. OK that's impossible, so calculating the low end isn't worth it.
But for 2-12 weeks after a third dose, someone has 60-80% protection against infection. So let's see if we can get that number to 100% to eradicate the omicron variant.
(85% * .95%)/80% = 101%
We can sort of maybe eradiate omicron if 100% of the population is perpetually kept at 2-12 weeks since the third dose and it turns out the highest estimates of efficacy for this group are true. They're actually run down for weeks 0-2 though, so 16.667% of the time, people are going to need to be in a hard quarantine.
^^^
This is what you'd have to mandate, by the numbers, to eradicate COVID-19. Assuming naturally immunity doesn't exist.
Just saying that vaccine efficacy has become moot as far as eradication goes and Canada is now counting on blindly blundering out of COVID-19 in a borderline retarded fugue because we can't allow ourselves to understand how things actually work because the preached to masses of hysterical bigots will melt down when release comes from reasons that are forbidden to explain.
Thank you very much for those.
As for mandates, it's hard to imagine them going on much longer, and this discussion thread is actually about spreading misinformation about a persistent lie that covid vaccines were supposed to guarantee 100% protection from the virus.
It’s worth repeating, but it so obviously went way over your head.
So I’ll post what he said again.
I dumbed it down for you, and put in bold characters the only words you’ll be able to understand. Interestingly, it’s also the only ones that apply to you.
I don't have much to say about the mandates other than I see them as a common sense response to a communicable disease rather than a tyrannical assault on individual freedoms. I'm OK with erring on the side of caution during a global pandemic.
Your original picture with the green circle around the 1 is a deliberate attempt at misdirection, given that the definition of "unknown" is that the names don't show up on the list of people known to be vaccinated.