Actually, when Moderna and Pfizer vaccines first came out, they were touted as having 95% effectivity then. Then, it kept dropping in the 40%. Now, they require boosters, 3rd and now 4th boosters. So, what protection are you actually, getting? Extreme liberals who attended the Hollywood Correspondents dinner who was boosted and had to be tested, a number of them caught the Corona Virus. Conservatives like Laura Ingraham and Kat Timpf was at that event and did not get sick. Why? Maybe, ask GWB why all his pronouncements ended up being proven wrong?
Fact Checking Covid-Denier Nonsense
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Actually, when Moderna and Pfizer vaccines first came out, they were touted as having 95% effectivity then. Then, it kept dropping in the 40%. Now, they require boosters, 3rd and now 4th boosters. So, what protection are you actually, getting? Extreme liberals who attended the Hollywood Correspondents dinner who was boosted and had to be tested, a number of them caught the Corona Virus. Conservatives like Laura Ingraham and Kat Timpf was at that event and did not get sick. Why? Maybe, ask GWB why all his pronouncements ended up being proven wrong?
GWB has been very helpful with his fact checking COVID denier nonsense, smallfil. Show some respect. So what if his sources are "Rawstory" and "BlogMickey" or "The Sun"? You're a denier and an apostate to the Religion™. Have you no shame?
So in summary you have no evidence showing the Moderna vaccine only has an efficacy or effectiveness of 3%.
Uh, I just posted it.
But in summary, you agree it went from (at the minimum) 85% supposed efficacy to being restricted because of adverse health effects?
Narrator: As usual, Tsing's question was met with silence.
Proud deplorable here. Cannot wait to put President Donald Trump back in office. I am sure GWB and other ET trolls are having a hissy fit at the mere thought.
That tweet is absolutely wrong and misleading. ARR doesn't mean 'real-world projection' versus RRR as trial stats. In fact, it is rather the opposite. The poster either doesn't understand what ARR is, or is hoping others don't understand so he can falsely claim the vaccines are useless.
The article posted in the Lancet was more a technical discussion in the medical community, and the author did NOT claim vaccines are useless:
When asked about the claim, Olliaro, professor of poverty related infectious diseases at the Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health of Oxford University told Reuters via email it was “extremely disappointing to see how information can be twisted.” He also said, “Bottom line: these vaccines are good public health interventions,” and added that in the commentary, “We do not say vaccines do not work.”
See my post above: no you didn't post it.
The question whether someone would agree the vaccine went from 85% to being restricted because of adverse health effects is dishonest. The countries that chose not to use Moderna for young people anymore did this as a precaution to completely rule out very very rare side effects - that still are rather harmless an overwhelming majority of the time though - since alternatives are available.
Can you post a link to the official statements from "the countries that chose not to use Moderna"?