Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

I don't think you need a NYT subscription to read that article. I don't have one but can still pull it up. At one point, they were making their Covid content available without a subscription. Not sure if that is still the case.

And I agree that a higher effectiveness may make some people want to get vaccinated who are now hesitant. But it its 95% effective, does 99 or 100% make a meaningful difference?

Other countries are having issues with vaccinations too. Logistics are significant. And there is a far too limited supply right now.

Let's be clear, the trial data puts efficacy at 95%. One doctor in the article, on behalf of a health educator, says it is "essentially" 100% effective. I interpret that he's really projecting the outcome, provided everyone gets the shot.

Health education around this particular challenge has been terrible in part because of the politicization of it, so it doesn't strike me as inappropriate to not oversell it when people can't be compelled to participate in the mitigation effort in the first place.

You can open NYT article in an incognito window...but you didn't hear that from me. Stealing is bad, mmmmkay.

Regarding efficacy - it's semantic. Methodology and the "correct" way of reporting things vs real results and the spirit of what you're doing. It flat out describes the deal in the article:

If anything, the 95 percent number understates the effectiveness, because it counts anyone who came down with a mild case of Covid-19 as a failure. But turning Covid into a typical flu — as the vaccines evidently did for most of the remaining 5 percent — is actually a success. Of the 32,000 people who received the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine in a research trial, do you want to guess how many contracted a severe Covid case? One.

Based on the trial of 32,000 people:

It was 95% effective at preventing infection and reduced the risk to that of the typical flu for an additonal 4.997%.

It was 99.997% effective at preventing severe cases of COVID.

There's really nothing to overthink here (yeah, I know where I am), the vaccine is far more effective than even we've been told.

And that only reinforces my earlier take as far as I'm concerned. After it's available to all, you're on your own. I believe in a world where everyone is free to die of stupidity.

You can read the article using an incognito window (at least I could). I don't think the article is nearly as cut and dry (surprise of the day!) as Chicago07 wants to make it. It included discussion about not wanting to say something was 100% effective and being conservative in estimates. Under promise and over deliver type stuff rather than a deliberate attempt to misinform in order to manipulate behavior. It also mentioned a number of scientists who think we're underselling the vaccine, but no mention of any other POV. Maybe because there isn't any support for an opposing POV, but I'm still curious.

Here is the only paragraph in the article discussing motivation:
"Why are many experts conveying a more negative message?

Again, their motivations are mostly good. As academic researchers, they are instinctively cautious, prone to emphasizing any uncertainty. Many may also be nervous that vaccinated people will stop wearing masks and social distancing, which in turn could cause unvaccinated people to stop as well. If that happens, deaths would soar even higher."

It doesn't strike me as some ground breaking expose on the nefarious and manipulative science complex.

All that said, if the vaccine is really that effective, I guess I don't especially care if you get one or not...but people who are allergic to the shots probably do and our health care workers probably do and anyone who wants to have an elective surgery ever probably does, as does anyone who will need an ICU bed for some other reason, etc. etc. so go get the shot. I'd much rather see covid go the way of the measles than the way of the flu.

Lord Gonchar said:

I believe in a world where everyone is free to die of stupidity.

I would point to the woman who died inside the Capitol.

When they talk about vaccines effectiveness, they talk about it the way it is being reported: efficacy against getting the particular illness. And often they talk about reducing the chances of severe illness (like with the flu and shingles vaccines). Nothing new or untoward. In addition for Covid vaccines, process has been much faster than normal. There is still a lot we do not know about the vaccines (or the virus for that matter).

There has been a lot of talk here about responsibility to each other. Does that apply only on a national level or also global?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/this-global-covid-19-vaccine-is...ocid=ientp

What is an incognito window? Asking for a friend.

In Chrome, it's the untracked mode which doesn't store cookies, passwords, history, or anything else. It was sold as "for use in public places like libraries" but I think everyone knows it's "porn mode." In Safari, I believe it's called private viewing and I have no idea what it is in other browsers.

It’s Incognito in Chrome, Private in Firefox.

Bakeman31092 said:
Even though there appeared to be good intentions behind the early lie about masks, how much damage did that end up doing?

Except, at least in the WHO's case, it wasn't a lie. Early on, the WHO said two things about masks.

First, that the medical evidence was still out regarding effectiveness at preventing spread, which was true at the time. That's vastly different from the politicized pundit interpretation of "masks don't work."

And second, that we didn't have enough masks for medical workers, who need masks in order to treat and hopefully save infected people from dying without dying themselves. So we should save that limited supply for those who absolutely need them, rather than use them for people who want to go to Target or whatever.

Lord Gonchar said:

Umm, accurate information.

It was accurate information, as you mention a few posts down:

Based on the trial of 32,000 people:

It was 95% effective at preventing infection...

The main, or even entire, point of this vaccine is to reduce or slow the spread of the virus. Just like masks aren't intended to prevent me from getting infected, but to prevent me from contributing to the spread. That these vaccines have the added benefit of reducing severity for the remaining 4.997% who are infected doesn't change the fact that the vaccine is 95% effective at preventing infection.

djDaemon said:

The main, or even entire, point of this vaccine is to reduce or slow the spread of the virus. Just like masks aren't intended to prevent me from getting infected, but to prevent me from contributing to the spread. That these vaccines have the added benefit of reducing severity for the remaining 4.997% who are infected doesn't change the fact that the vaccine is 95% effective at preventing infection.

Yeah, but you skipped the line where I qualified my approach:

"Regarding efficacy - it's semantic. Methodology and the "correct" way of reporting things vs real results and the spirit of what you're doing."

Both are true. But both tell people a very different story, I think.

Perhaps, as usual, I misspoke in comparison to my thoughts in my haste to jump into the conversation? Instead of "inaccurate" I should have been working with "incomplete" or "motivated" information.

And yes, I'm sure this is available if you dig in and look at the data and understand it - but, you know, I'm not an expert and so on and so forth.

After sitting on it for a day, I suppose it's more a conversation about whether the ends justify the means - or something along those lines.

I tend to not feel so nice and fuzzy about the narrative being controlled to achieve a certain goal. Especially in regards to a governing body. But that's a different discussion.

"Incomplete," "motivated," and "industry standard misunderstood by most people outside the industry" are all universes apart from each other, though. And we're still basing any accusation of "motivated" on a single line in a single article that came with a lot of caveats and speculation.

Provide more info and you run the risk of confusing people, losing them, etc. TL; DR view. Provide less info (KISS approach) and you are misinforming, manipulating, etc. Guess you just keep moving forward doing the best you can (knowing too if you take different approaches that with other vaccines/meds and create additional issues). As they say you can't make everyone happy.

ApolloAndy said:

"Incomplete," "motivated," and "industry standard misunderstood by most people outside the industry" are all universes apart from each other, though.

I guess.

But I don't think it's a stretch to say that "95% efficacy" and "99.997% effective at preventing severe infection" tell vastly different stories. Yet both are true. We're getting dangerous close to arguing over what "facts" are. Ugh.

Not once did any of us (who I would generally give more credit than average) seem to cite, acknowledge or even apparently know the existence of, that information. Hell, the last couple of your arguments regarding finish lines and moving forward were heavily based around the idea that the risk is still 5%. And in technical terms, the risk of getting infected is 5% - but the spirit of the situation is lost. The risk of severe infection appears to be reduced to .003%!

It's akin to your wife going to Chili's with a coworker and then ****ing him in the car before they go back to work and then when you ask about her day, she's like, "Nothing big. I had lunch at Chili's with Steve."

Not a lie.

I dunno. This is one I'll never win given the room. Pick your battles and so on and so forth.

GoBucks89 said:
As they say you can't make everyone happy.

Fair. As someone who has approached this whole thing as cautious, but realistic. I feel a little put off by the way the info was presented. (and yes, based on one article that suggested I look at things a little differently)

A choice was made. It didn't make me happy.

I think you give semantics way too much weight in a country where a third of people believe the election was fraudulent.

Probably.

Jeff said:

You have an incomplete memory, and you're fairly insane if you think that Trump had anything to do with the delivery of any vaccine. You can't pretend the disease is not a threat, deny science, then take credit for a vaccine. He's not a scientist, and he denies the validity of science. And simple math. He lost.

No one, including myself, said he had ANYTHING to do with the delivering (or making) the vaccine. He only removed the red tape.

Having said that, my statement that he said there would be a vaccine by the time speicified still holds true. You're reading more into a statement I made than what was there.

But reading into things far too deep is what we are best at around here. ;)

Lord Gonchar said:

It's akin to your wife going to Chili's with a coworker and then ****ing him in the car before they go back to work and then when you ask about her day, she's like, "Nothing big. I had lunch at Chili's with Steve."

“Dammit Steve, we talked about this.”

Alternate joke:

No, it's like my wife saying, "I 95% ****ed Steve in the Chili's parking lot."

So how does that work? Did Steve wear a condom?