Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    12 Nov '20 11:492 edits
    @metal-brain said
    That is not consistent with news reports here in the USA.
    That's one thing I just clearly implied.
    If you are right the news media was wrong to report "up to" 90%, which they did.

    Correct. And, that's one thing I just clearly implied.
    Maybe the news reports were wrong.
    Some albeit not all news reports were definitely wrong as many contradicted each other thus they logically couldn't possibly be all entirely correct.
    I really hope I don't have to explain to you why most normal people would find it extremely difficult to reconcile an "up to", or words of that exact effect, with a "more than", or words of that exact effect.
  2. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    16923
    14 Nov '20 00:101 edit
    @humy said
    That's one thing I just clearly implied.
    If you are right the news media was wrong to report "up to" 90%, which they did.

    Correct. And, that's one thing I just clearly implied.
    Maybe the news reports were wrong.
    Some albeit not all news reports were definitely wrong as many contradicted each other thus they logically couldn't possibly be al ...[text shortened]... oncile an "up to", or words of that exact effect, with a "more than", or words of that exact effect.
    Nope. Up to is accurate.

    "The companies announced the results in news releases, not a peer-reviewed medical journal, so that percentage could certainly change in the future."

    https://www.healthdigest.com/275533/the-truth-about-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine/
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    14 Nov '20 07:47
    @metal-brain said
    Nope. Up to is accurate.
    So you are so moronic you see no inconsistency between an "up to", or words of that exact effect, with a "more than", or words of that exact effect. Got it.
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    16923
    14 Nov '20 13:35
    @humy said
    So you are so moronic you see no inconsistency between an "up to", or words of that exact effect, with a "more than", or words of that exact effect. Got it.
    The companies announced the results in news releases, not a peer-reviewed medical journal, so that percentage could certainly change in the future.

    That is why it is "up to" in reality. The early news reports saying "up to" were accurate. It is the news reports now omitting "up to" that are inaccurate.
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    16923
    18 Nov '20 12:12
    After Moderna came out and said their vaccine was 95% effective Pfizer all the sudden Pfizer claims they underestimated and their's is not 95% as well.

    YouTube

    Of course, this info is from....Pfizer. LOL!
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53118
    18 Nov '20 20:00
    @Metal-Brain
    So it took this long for you to realize there was competition going on with vaccines?
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    16923
    18 Nov '20 22:44
    @sonhouse said
    @Metal-Brain
    So it took this long for you to realize there was competition going on with vaccines?
    So the very next day Phizer announces they underestimated how effective their vaccine is and it just happens to be the same as Moderna's vaccine 1 day after Moderna announced 95% first.

    I suppose it is possible it could be a coincidence, but it is not likely. You didn't watch the Jimmy Dore video, did you?
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    19 Nov '20 02:332 edits
    @metal-brain said

    You didn't watch the Jimmy Dore video, did you?
    Jimmy Dore isn't a scientist nor an expert but a comedian with a few wild conspiricy theories; Right; A really reliable source of facts that is more reliable than that from the real experts and real science.
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    16923
    19 Nov '20 06:23
    @humy said
    Jimmy Dore isn't a scientist nor an expert but a comedian with a few wild conspiricy theories; Right; A really reliable source of facts that is more reliable than that from the real experts and real science.
    Who determined the Pfizer vaccine's effectiveness was better than they thought and now 95% merely one day after Moderna said their vaccine was 95% effective?

    Who is the source of that study?
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    19 Nov '20 08:215 edits
    @metal-brain said
    Who determined the Pfizer vaccine's effectiveness was better than they thought and now 95% merely one day after Moderna said their vaccine was 95% effective?
    your irrelevant straw man. I obviously implied nothing about that.
    I was obviously thinking about at all your previous BS assertions in other posts and not that above comment when you implied Jimmy Dore was one of your sources of facts.
  11. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    19 Nov '20 09:161 edit
    This is excellent news with lesser caveats than with the one before;

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54902908
    "...A new vaccine that protects against Covid-19 is nearly 95% effective,
    ...The company says the vaccine is protecting 94.5% of people.
    ...We still do not know how long immunity will last as volunteers will have to be followed for much longer before that can be answered.

    There are hints it offers some protection in older age groups, who are most at risk of dying from Covid, but there is not full data.
    ...No significant safety concerns have been reported, but nothing, including paracetamol, is 100% safe.

    Short lived fatigue, headache and pain were reported after the injection in some patients.

    "These effects are what we would expect with a vaccine that is working and inducing a good immune response,"
    ...
    Moderna's vaccine appears to be easier to store as it remains stable at minus 20C for up to six months and can be kept in a standard fridge for up to a month.

    Pfizer's vaccine needs ultra-cold storage at around minus 75C, but it can be kept in the fridge for five days.
    ..."

    So not only does it appear to be more effective but it appears to be easier to store.
  12. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    16923
    20 Nov '20 01:06
    @humy said
    your irrelevant straw man. I obviously implied nothing about that.
    I was obviously thinking about at all your previous BS assertions in other posts and not that above comment when you implied Jimmy Dore was one of your sources of facts.
    Jimmy Dore is right, Pfizer is the source of that study.

    It seems you need a jagoff comedian to give you the real news. You are not getting it from your sources. Pretty sad you have to rely on a comedian for the truth, huh? That is how bad the propaganda is.
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    20 Nov '20 07:052 edits
    @metal-brain said
    Jimmy Dore is right, Pfizer is the source of that study.
    your irrelevant straw man. I obviously said/implied nothing about that and you know it. You convince nobody here.
  14. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    16923
    20 Nov '20 09:04
    @humy said
    your irrelevant straw man. I obviously said/implied nothing about that and you know it. You convince nobody here.
    So you accept that Pfizer is the source of that study that benefits Pfizer. Good. As long as you know that is all that matters.

    I have a new vaccine from Metal Brain Corp.
    My vaccine is 99% effective according to a study brought to you by Metal Brain Corp. No conflict of interest. 😆
Back to Top