no mention at all of the different usage of CT values and what constitutes a case in the vaxx vs unvaxxed
no mention at all of the different usage of CT values and what constitutes a case in the vaxx vs unvaxxed
The cdc admitted they used January through June numbers for the 1% agenda talking point.
The cdc admitted they used January through June numbers for the 1% agenda talking point.
People don't seem to understand that when the CDC refers to effectiveness and says, "getting covid", they are referring to symptomatic covid, not just a positive test.
A "breakthrough case" is not a vaxxed idiot getting a positive covid test. A breakthrough case is getting symptomatic covid, which the CDC is trying to draw the line at hospitalizations.
If you read the EUA application, then read the study that was used to get the EUA, it is clear that they are referring to symptomatic covid and clearly state that the drug being tested does not prevent getting or spreading covid, but claims to be 99.7% effective at preventing symptomatic covid. The 99.7% effective figure is actually the rate of immuno -response, but they are using that response to suggest that you wont be hospitalized or die if you have that response.
People don't seem to understand that when the CDC refers to effectiveness and says, "getting covid", they are referring to symptomatic covid, not just a positive test.
A "breakthrough case" is not a vaxxed idiot getting a positive covid test. A breakthrough case is getting symptomatic covid, which the CDC is trying to draw the line at hospitalizations.
If you read the EUA application, then read the study that was used to get the EUA, it is clear that they are referring to symptomatic covid and clearly state that the drug being tested does not prevent getting or spreading covid, but claims to be 99.7% effective at preventing symptomatic covid. The 99.7% effective figure is actually the rate of immuno -response, but they are using that response to suggest that you wont be hospitalized or die if you have that response.
The immune response means the allergic reaction caused by the vaccine. The "it means it's working" allergic reaction. So you're saying 95% efficacy means 95% of people get the shot show an "immune response"?
The immune response means the allergic reaction caused by the vaccine. The "it means it's working" allergic reaction. So you're saying 95% efficacy means 95% of people get the shot show an "immune response"?
99.7%. Yes.
And, it's not new. That's been the method of vax efficacy for previous flu shots and the latest of other vaxxes.
99.7%. Yes.
And, it's not new. That's been the method of vax efficacy for previous flu shots and the latest of other vaxxes.
I understand, I just wanted clarification.
I understand, I just wanted clarification.
I'm going to guess (IMHO), based upon nothing more than my research, that the actual breakthrough rate (where people get asymptomatic or symptomatic "COVID" after the jab over the short term is in the double-digits, for sure (not including those that just up and die from various issues within about 4 months of their jab). Mid and Long term - many doctors suggest that is where the sicknesses and deaths from the jab are going to dramatically increase...
I'm going to guess (IMHO), based upon nothing more than my research, that the actual breakthrough rate (where people get asymptomatic or symptomatic "COVID" after the jab over the short term is in the double-digits, for sure (not including those that just up and die from various issues within about 4 months of their jab). Mid and Long term - many doctors suggest that is where the sicknesses and deaths from the jab are going to dramatically increase...
(post is archived)