To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ron johnson
The point was to show that the idea that vaccine induced immunity was better than infection was wrong.
Less than 1% of of new cases in the sample were from people infected previously. Is it really worth trying to improve on 99% immunity with the side effect profile of these vaccines? And it's clear that whatever benefits the vaccine provides diminish over time.
This does not appear to be the case long term based on the data coming out of Israel.
I’d love to see your math on how you arrived at 99% efficacy for previous infection based on the available data. Please tell! I think there’s another Nobel Prize here for the Ron Johnson efficacy formula!
To summarize the positions Ron is taking here, the vaccine is not effective, previous infection is approx 6x more effective than vaccination, yet previous infection is 99% effective! Ron discovered new math everyone!
To your second point, umm, the vaccines still have wayyy lower rates of transmission and are effective. The lowest reporting has still shown the vaccine is 39% effective at infection and much much higher than that for severe cases. Again, let’s show some sources for the Nobel committee here, just how did you arrive at the conclusion that transmission rates are not lower in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations?
To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carl_Mega
Well, he had an unlinked graph and a chart (or was it a table?) one of which had almost 5 days worth of data from which to draw daring conclusions so it's pretty much settled law. QED.
He’s had a lot of trouble understanding basic concepts before yet he’s so convinced he’s smarter than all those elitist PhDs. [emoji848]