Wejo's Official Covid Vaccine thread is way longer than monkey boy's long since deleted thread.
Harambe goes home a loser with a sore anus once again.
This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
-
43
-
you Iose wrote:
Wejo's Official Covid Vaccine thread is way longer than monkey boy's long since deleted thread.
Harambe goes home a loser with a sore anus once again.
^Seething anti-vax moron CONFIRMED!
57 -
2600 bro wrote:
antivaxxers when the COVID vaccines protect kids from severe disease without dangerous side effects: 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡
antivaxxers when kids and their parents get very sick, die, or suffer long term damage from COVID: 😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇
They literally want to see kids become orphans from COVID. Digusting
26 -
you Iose wrote:
Wejo's Official Covid Vaccine thread is way longer than monkey boy's long since deleted thread.
Harambe goes home a loser with a sore anus once again.
Read the thread and you'll see otherwise.
52 -
you Iose wrote:
Wejo's Official Covid Vaccine thread is way longer than monkey boy's long since deleted thread.
Harambe goes home a loser with a sore anus once again.
I respect BroJos attempts to contain antivaxxer rage into one thread.
Cope and seethe away!
56 -
"Only 19.4% of U.S. adults have received this season’s COVID vaccine based on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention’s National Immunization Survey, despite a recommendation that all adults get an updated shot to protect against serious illness."
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.32 -
Q answerer wrote:
Newname wrote:
Pfizer got sued and denied ever making the 95% claim
They got sued and it went nowhere because they were correct... the clinical trial which was posted confirmed that.
Do you really believe all things are static?
Pfizer denied they ever claimed they said their jab was 95% effective in stopping transmission in their defense.
Did you even read the article?
Here they are in Nov 2020 claiming 95% effective with NO safety concerns: From CNN
Here they are in December 2023 saying "Pfizer did not say that its vaccine had "95% efficacy against infection."
32 -
DanM wrote:
"Only 19.4% of U.S. adults have received this season’s COVID vaccine based on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention’s National Immunization Survey, despite a recommendation that all adults get an updated shot to protect against serious illness."
Higher than I would expect
32 -
Newname wrote:
Q answerer wrote:
They got sued and it went nowhere because they were correct... the clinical trial which was posted confirmed that.
Do you really believe all things are static?
Pfizer denied they ever claimed they said their jab was 95% effective in stopping transmission in their defense.
Did you even read the article?
Here they are in Nov 2020 claiming 95% effective with NO safety concerns: From CNN
Here they are in December 2023 saying "Pfizer did not say that its vaccine had "95% efficacy against infection."
Never says that anywhere in your article.
Pfizer stood by the 95% RRR stat in their clinical trial... because it was true. Paxton being a moron and trying to claim everything should be stated as ARR is like preschool level statistics.
Nice try. You clearly didnt read/comprehend.
21 -
Q answerer wrote:
Newname wrote:
Pfizer denied they ever claimed they said their jab was 95% effective in stopping transmission in their defense.
Did you even read the article?
Here they are in Nov 2020 claiming 95% effective with NO safety concerns: From CNN
Here they are in December 2023 saying "Pfizer did not say that its vaccine had "95% efficacy against infection."
Never says that anywhere in your article.
Pfizer stood by the 95% RRR stat in their clinical trial... because it was true. Paxton being a moron and trying to claim everything should be stated as ARR is like preschool level statistics.
Nice try. You clearly didnt read/comprehend.
"Pfizer did not say that its vaccine had "95% efficacy against infection."
Copy and paste from the article you claim does not say that.
11 -
02
-
Newname wrote:
Q answerer wrote:
Never says that anywhere in your article.
Pfizer stood by the 95% RRR stat in their clinical trial... because it was true. Paxton being a moron and trying to claim everything should be stated as ARR is like preschool level statistics.
Nice try. You clearly didnt read/comprehend.
"Pfizer did not say that its vaccine had "95% efficacy against infection."
Copy and paste from the article you claim does not say that.
Are you stupid? That’s the article’s author editorializing about ARR vs RRR.
Pfizer certainly said the vaccine conferred 95% protection against infection.
31 -
Newname wrote:
You’re just stupid. The endpoint for the trial was infection not transmission. That’s all the quote means.
It’s insane how you don’t even pause to think critically. Ever.31 -
Q answering wrote:
Newname wrote:
"Pfizer did not say that its vaccine had "95% efficacy against infection."
Copy and paste from the article you claim does not say that.
Are you stupid? That’s the article’s author editorializing about ARR vs RRR.
Pfizer certainly said the vaccine conferred 95% protection against infection.
"Pfizer did not say that its vaccine had "95% efficacy against infection."
02 -
Pfizer did not know whether Covid vaccine stopped transmission before rollout, executive admits
A Pfizer exec has made a frank admission during a parliamentary hearing, ...02 -
Q answering wrote:
Newname wrote:
You’re just stupid. The endpoint for the trial was infection not transmission. That’s all the quote means.
It’s insane how you don’t even pause to think critically. Ever.What's the difference?
01 -
Newname wrote:
Q answering wrote:
You’re just stupid. The endpoint for the trial was infection not transmission. That’s all the quote means.
It’s insane how you don’t even pause to think critically. Ever.What's the difference?
In November 2020, Pfizer released a statement sharing the results of its COVID-19 vaccine trials, stating that its vaccine was "95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose."
Pfizer did not say that its vaccine had "95% efficacy against infection."What's the difference between effective and efficacy?
In any event, we now know pretty much everyone who got jabb'ed got Covid. They tried calling it rare "break through" cases for a while but the evidence became overwhelming and then they began to say they had never said it would stop transmission but it lessens severity
12 -
Q answerer wrote:
Newname wrote:
Pfizer denied they ever claimed they said their jab was 95% effective in stopping transmission in their defense.
Did you even read the article?
Here they are in Nov 2020 claiming 95% effective with NO safety concerns: From CNN
Here they are in December 2023 saying "Pfizer did not say that its vaccine had "95% efficacy against infection."
Never says that anywhere in your article.
Pfizer stood by the 95% RRR stat in their clinical trial... because it was true. Paxton being a moron and trying to claim everything should be stated as ARR is like preschool level statistics.
Nice try. You clearly didnt read/comprehend.
The document linked below on the FDA site, “Communicating Risks and Benefits,” suggests to “Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks.” It’s relatively easy to clearly provide both with equal prominence. It’s easy to provide examples where just providing one or the other would be deceptive.
It makes researchers appear as pharma shills when they just provide relative risk and that inevitably gets picked up in a press release. Better to increase trust by providing both, in my opinion.
This post was edited 50 seconds after it was posted.11 -
Newname wrote:
Newname wrote:
What's the difference?
In November 2020, Pfizer released a statement sharing the results of its COVID-19 vaccine trials, stating that its vaccine was "95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose."
Pfizer did not say that its vaccine had "95% efficacy against infection."What's the difference between effective and efficacy?
In any event, we now know pretty much everyone who got jabb'ed got Covid. They tried calling it rare "break through" cases for a while but the evidence became overwhelming and then they began to say they had never said it would stop transmission but it lessens severity
You can't even state your thesis here.
Find a quote from Pfizer saying the vaccine is not 95% effective. Not from that fact check article's author! I promise you Pfizer has never denied the results of the clinical trial - you are claiming they have.
The vaccine was 95% effective against infection in clinical trial. You have zero evidence otherwise, you are just mad that the virus mutated :) and think everything is a conspirary or lie.
20
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.