People need to understand anything under a 50% efficacy is actually a negative efficacy. People think ‘okay it is only 30% effective. Thats better than nothing. No. 50% is no effect. It means 50% of infected people came from each group. Anything below 50% means you are MORE likely to get infected if you’ve been vaxed. .
People need to understand anything under a 50% efficacy is actually a negative efficacy. People think ‘okay it is only 30% effective. Thats better than nothing. No. 50% is no effect. It means 50% of infected people came from each group. Anything below 50% means you are MORE likely to get infected if you’ve been vaxed. .
Technically, 50% efficacy means a 50% reduction in the event, such as 5 events in treatment group compared to 10 events in control group. So a treatment that TRULY has 50% efficacy could be useful AS LONG AS it doesn't do harm in other ways, like the vax does. BTW, I am 100% on your side regarding the vax- it seems to negative efficacy against infection now, and it always had negative efficacy against all-cause death!
I think you are incorrect. A medicine merely has to beat placebo to get approval. Vaccines though require 50%. Anything less actually means one is more likely to get the disease having taken the vax.
I'm talking about the definition of "50% efficacy". Efficacy is the amount by which the treatment REDUCES the event https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-vaccine-efficacy (not that I trust that source particularly, but that is the universal definition of efficacy). 50% efficacy definitely does not mean equal numbers of people in the two groups got the disease- that would be 0% efficacy.
People need to understand anything under a 50% efficacy is actually a negative efficacy. People think ‘okay it is only 30% effective. Thats better than nothing. No. 50% is no effect. It means 50% of infected people came from each group. Anything below 50% means you are MORE likely to get infected if you’ve been vaxed. .
Technically, 50% efficacy means a 50% reduction in the event, such as 5 events in treatment group compared to 10 events in control group. So a treatment that TRULY has 50% efficacy could be useful AS LONG AS it doesn't do harm in other ways, like the vax does. BTW, I am 100% on your side regarding the vax- it seems to negative efficacy against infection now, and it always had negative efficacy against all-cause death!
I think you are incorrect. A medicine merely has to beat placebo to get approval. Vaccines though require 50%. Anything less actually means one is more likely to get the disease having taken the vax.
I'm talking about the definition of "50% efficacy". Efficacy is the amount by which the treatment REDUCES the event https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-vaccine-efficacy (not that I trust that source particularly, but that is the universal definition of efficacy). 50% efficacy definitely does not mean equal numbers of people in the two groups got the disease- that would be 0% efficacy.