Originally Posted by pek64
Sigh. Oh, Rrrrrachel. It's so frustrating trying to have a discussion with someone who who posts poorly.
Actually, the problem is not that she posts poorly. The problem is that she is again misrepresenting the facts.
Let's get something straight (again--this has been discussed many times here). The term, "vaccine efficacy" does not represent a percentage of people who are protected by vaccines. "80% efficacy" does NOT mean that 80% of the people who receive the vaccine are protected.
It means that the difference between the number of cases of disease between vaxed and unvaxed groups. It does not tell you what percentage will or will not get the disease supposedly protected by the vaccine.
The flu shot, for example, was said last year to have 59% efficacy.
For every 100 people who got the flu shot, only 1.2 got the flu, which sounds just great.
But for every 100 who did NOT get the flu shot, only 2.7 got the flu.
The difference: 59%.
Either way, vaccinated or not, over 97% did not get the flu.
And this year, the flu shot's efficacy is even less. According to the CDC, the efficacy is around 50% overall, and a pathetic 9% for senior citizens (who are the main target market for flu shots, hmm hmm).
So all of Rrrrachel's seemingly complicated math and statistics concerning vaccine efficacy is basically BS. She is, as I said, misrepresenting the facts to make it appear that vaccines offer far, far more protection than they actually do.