COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca confirms 100% protection against severe disease, hospitalisation and death in the primary analysis of Phase III trials
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-ce...i-trials.html#
February 3, 2021

COVID-19: Novavax jab 100% effective in protecting against moderate and severe disease, trial results suggest
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...ggest-12332248
June 14, 2021

J&J asks for booster go-ahead, says second vaccine dose provides 100 percent COVID protection
https://www.mcknights.com/news/clini...id-protection/
October 7, 2021

Pfizer/BioNTech says its Covid-19 vaccine is 100% effective and well tolerated in adolescents
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/31/h...lts/index.html
March 31, 2021

Pfizer says Covid vaccine 100 percent effective in children ages 12 to 15
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...teens-n1262550
March 31, 2021

This is simply a barrage ofThe Science. And, btw, I could have listen maybe a dozen more studies and articles just like this one. So much of The Science, it's almost dizzying. It's open and shut: The vaccines are 100% effective. Period. Studiesprove itover and over and then over again and then after that, over once more and then over yet another time just for good measure.

It's is 100%, this is black and white. The vaccine is the End. You take it and you are 100%. The Science and studies have shown this and the Experts have spoken. Do not spread any more MISINFORMATION saying anything otherwise. Even saying the vaccines are 99.999999% effective -- that's a damn lie, because it's been shown here so many times, it's not 99.999999% -- it's 100%.

So Sayeth The Science!

You're saying against the OG strain the studies were wrong?

Or are you saying that because the jab was less effective against strains, that it wasn't made for, that that negates every single characteristic about the jab against the OG strain?

Yes, they were wrong about effectiveness against the original due to limited data, and twisting of relative vs absolute risk. A similar twisting is why statins are so popular.

Misleading and also blatant lying on the part of the pharmaceuticals, yes, also obvious collusion with media (giving ridiculous headlines about it being 100%, knowing people mostly just read headlines and Nope Out).

The narrative Was: Vaccines are 100%, later: Well, maybe just 99%. Unvaccinated are the only ones getting sick and dying. Unvaccinated are causing all the problems.

And, that was and is complete bullchit. That variant and all the others coming after. An example of the blatant twisting, mentioned below (and I do not have the exact numbers so this is just an example of how they did it) but they'd look at people. See unvaccinated had a 2% chance of going to the hospital. Then they'd look at unvaccinated and see it was 1.5%, which is better but only marginally. Then the headlines would be: "Vaccines 98.5% keeping you from the hospital, unvaccinated almost twice as likely to be hospitalized!"

Anyone who strayed from that path, even slightly - suggesting what we now know to be the truth (which is: Vaccinated can get it, can spread it -- it wasn't even tested to see if it stopped transmission), they were attacked. I posted a recent article of a respected Pulitzer Prize winning author saying it's time to mock people who died who simply said things at that time which we now know are truthful.

I'm going to keep amusing myself with this, hope it doesn't get too much under your skin.

If the narrative had been: "The vaccines reduce symptoms and the time in which you are sick and potentially spreading the disease. They seem to last for a few months and then the protection wanes and boosters will be required to potentially maintain the benefit." Then, if someone had something to say about it, especially doctors, they could and we'd all talk about it like anything else.

Ok, that's fine. Some people are at risk. I know people (well, a person) with Lupus. I know elderly people. I know people who have comorbidities. People who should be concerned about the flu or covid. Many people who would want to get vaccinated knowing exactly what we know now.

However, healthy people, most children, people who were not obese, sickly and such? Maybe they want it. Maybe they don't. Either way, it's not a problem. Vaccinated are fine. Unvaccinated also should not have been ostracized, unfairly blamed for the pandemic, fired, coerced, silenced, etc...

So, do you disagree with this: "The vaccines reduce symptoms and the time in which you are sick and potentially spreading the disease. They seem to last for a few months and then the protection wanes and boosters will be required to potentially maintain the benefit."

I suspect you do, in which case, you need education. If you are laboring under that misconception that would explain why you seem so far apart from my stance(s) on this.

He's saying trust the science bro, even if it means a man with a dick is a woman if he believes strongly enough.

I could find many articles saying the effeciveness agasint the OG strain was 80%+. Right in line with most vaccines. Higher with two doses. And no one thinks any vaccine is 100% effective, that's just stupid. So you cheery picking a few hyperbolic articles doesn't make that what the scientific consensus was boyo.

Like this right here from the actual CDC from March 2021:

Effectiveness of a single dose, estimated to be 82% in this report, has also been demonstrated in phase III trials and recent observational studies. The estimated effectiveness found in this report is higher than estimates of single-dose effectiveness found in the Pfizer-BioNTech clinical trial (efficacy 52%; 95% CI = 30%–68%) (3) and an observational study from Israel (5). In the Israeli study, the Pfizer-BioNTech VE against symptomatic illness among the general adult population was 57% (95% CI = 50%–63%) and 66% (95% CI = 57%–73%) measured during 14–20 and 21–27 days, respectively, after the first dose (5). These differences might be related to the younger age of the HCP population in this study (<2% of participants aged ≥65 years) compared with the age of the Israeli study population (13% aged ≥70 years). In two cohort studies among HCP, the single-dose effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was consistent with the estimates in this report, with 72% effectiveness (95% CI = 58%–86%) 21 days after the first dose in a U.K. study (7) and 80% effectiveness (95% CI = 59%–90%) ≥14 days after the first dose in a U.S. cohort study (6). Because the single-dose effectiveness estimates in this and other studies were based on a short follow-up, the duration of this level of protection from a single dose is unknown.


https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7020e2.htm

Sucks when the narrative falls apart

You can find articles about anything boyo. I can find an article in 1 minute saying Hillary eats live children for example.

I posted right from the CDCs website.

Trust the science bro.

"Results demonstrated vaccine efficacy of 76% (CI: 59% to 86%) after a first dose, with protection maintained to the second dose. With an inter-dose interval of 12 weeks or more, vaccine efficacy increased to 82% (CI: 63%, 92%).

The analysis also showed the potential for the vaccine to reduce asymptomatic transmission of the virus, based on weekly swabs obtained from volunteers in the UK trial. The data showed that PCR positive readings were reduced by 67% (CI: 49%, 78%) after a single dose, and 50% (CI: 38% to 59%) after the two dose regimen, supporting a substantial impact on transmission of the virus.""The American biotechnology company said the trial had shown its vaccine was also 93% effective against circulating variants of concern and variants of interest, and 91% effective in protecting high-risk populations.""“Our clinical program has found that a booster of our COVID-19 vaccine increases levels of protection for those who have received our single-shot vaccine to 94%,” said Mathai Mammen, M.D., Ph.D., Global Head, Janssen Research & Development, Johnson & Johnson. ""In a Phase 3 trial of 2,260 participants ages 12 to 15 in the US, the vaccine elicited strong antibody responses one month after the second dose – exceeding those demonstrated in people ages 16 to 25 in previous trials, Pfizer reported. The vaccine is currently authorized in the US for emergency use in people 16 and older."

No percentages listed in link"Pfizer's Phase 3 clinical trial in adults found that the vaccine was around 95 percent effective in preventing symptomatic illness. That ticked down slightly, to 90 percent, in real-world data released Monday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."None of the links say what you're attributing to them

This shouldn’t surprise you. They’re pushing boosters with extremely limited data. They’re pushing paxlovid despite any data that it helps outside of an unvaccinated/previously infected person that was already high risk for a bad outcome.

Public health has become just another arm of Pfizer/moderna and now has the benefit of the media shilling for them.

People who got the jab still got the Rona, and the original strain already mutated by the time the jab came out.

Anyway, you're not even boosted, you're anti-science.

I added quotes from every link

Are miscers only okay with vaccines that demonstrate 100% effectiveness?

Imagine posting this as anything other than satire...

Interesting that with everything that keeps coming out, the die hard Ronaholics will never admit that maybe they were wrong.

I mean, Patty had a meltdown over the Fauci incident.

So narrative supporters only read headlines. Got it

How was that false against the OG strain boyo?

Ahh. Got it. Thanks!

Can you help me out with what they're arguing? OP posted a bunch of links from either the manufacturers or meaningless sources citing 100%. I posted from the actual CDC that it's effectiveness was low 90's after two doses for the OG strain. Which it was.

What are Anachron and Deputy Dawg trying to argue? That because the virus mutated that these facts about the jab against the OG strain are null and void?

Help me out here boyo.

Oh, just cuz you give orders doesn't mean I'd ever follow them

Me? You mean the journalists? The ones who make the headlines? You know, the things everyone knows most people only read and then form an opinion based off of? Wonder who was buying massive advertisements from the companies that ran all those ads which then ordered their journalists to shill for them?

I don't see how not taking orders from an internet stranger makes me a liar. But that's hardly the point.

Anyone who challenges the misc narrative must be crushed by any forum-means necessary.

Just lol

Glad to be a pureblood so I don't have to resort to shilling for a rushed clot shot three years on.

It's a sad reflection of society that people don't read past headlines or tweets before drawing conclusions and raging out

How would we know if it was effective against the original strain, if the OG strain already mutated by the time the vaccine rolled out?

I have no idea why you think Comirnaty cannot be found. But, it seems like an effective angle to achieve the goal, I guess

That seems pretty ridiculous.

I didn't hear about anyone being loaded onto trains. But, that's just personal anecdote

I think I've been pretty consistent in questioning why people would take health or medical advice from politicians and/or journalists. I don't get it.

Like I said, it's a sad reflection of society that political and media messaging has such a strong effect simply because people don't seem to care about details

People trust authority, which is only very slightly different from your trust the science messaging

Especially considering journalists, politicians etc make scientific claims with no pushback or correction from the scientific community

If you can find even a single instance of me posting the ridiculous "trust the science" catchphrase, I'll leave the forum.

I can't imagine seeing journalists and politicians as authority figures. But, I get that some do/might/could

Why can't y'all read?