and the Vaxx comes up short.

But the findings mean the bivalent shots - which the US Government paid $5billion for last autumn - fall short of the World Health Organization's 50 percent efficacy threshold for an effective vaccine.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/25/23 10:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

and the Vaxx comes up short.

But the findings mean the bivalent shots - which the US Government
paid $5billion for last autumn - fall short of the World Health Organization's 50 percent efficacy threshold for an effective
vaccine.

Without citations, your claims aren't falsifiable. My guess is you
misread something like "boosters 25% more effective than previous
vaccination" as "boosters 25% effective."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2215471

"For all participants 12 years of age or older, vaccine effectiveness
against severe infection resulting in hospitalization over days 15 to 99
after receipt of one monovalent booster dose was 25.2% (95% confidence
interval [CI], –0.2 to 44.2), and the corresponding vaccine
effectiveness for one bivalent booster dose was 58.7% (95% CI, 43.7 to
69.8)"

tl/dr: boosters more effective than original vaccine

or 58 > 50

From the conclusion:

Bivalent boosters provided substantial additional protection against
severe omicron infection in persons who had previously been vaccinated
or boosted, although the effectiveness waned over time. The
effectiveness of bivalent boosters was higher than that of monovalent
boosters.

We adjusted for measured confounders, including vaccination history,
previous infection, and demographic variables. However, estimates of
booster effectiveness would be biased if boosted persons were more
likely or less likely to seek Covid-19 testing than nonboosted persons.
For this reason, we focused on severe infection, which was more likely
to be reported than mild infection. Very strong unmeasured confounders
would be required in order to fully explain away the observed
effectiveness of bivalent boosters.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 7:59:38 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

On 1/25/23 10:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

and the Vaxx comes up short.

But the findings mean the bivalent shots - which the US Government
paid $5billion for last autumn - fall short of the World Health Organization's 50 percent efficacy threshold for an effective
vaccine.

Without citations, your claims aren't falsifiable.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11677059/CDC-study-finds-bivalent-Covid-vaccines-provide-strong-protection-against-XBB-1-5-variant.html

A report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released Wednesday found the updated shots were just 48 percent effective at stopping symptomatic infection caused by the XBB.1.5 subvariant for up to three months.

But the CDC decided to redefine the purpose of a vaccine.

The CDC highlighted that the main purpose of the vaccines is to prevent hospitalization and death rather than transmission.

So just for the comorbid and uber paranoid like Stephen.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/26/23 6:41 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 7:59:38 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

On 1/25/23 10:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

and the Vaxx comes up short.

But the findings mean the bivalent shots - which the US
Government paid $5billion for last autumn - fall short of the
World Health Organization's 50 percent efficacy threshold for an
effective vaccine.

Without citations, your claims aren't falsifiable.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11677059/CDC-study-finds-bivalent-Covid-vaccines-provide-strong-protection-against-XBB-1-5-variant.html

A report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
released Wednesday found the updated shots were just 48 percent
effective at stopping symptomatic infection caused by the XBB.1.5
subvariant for up to three months.

Yes, a misreading to get from "provide strong protection" to "comes up
short."

But the CDC decided to redefine the purpose of a vaccine.

The CDC highlighted that the main purpose of the vaccines is to
prevent hospitalization and death rather than transmission.

So just for the comorbid and uber paranoid like Stephen.

The WHO:

A vaccine’s efficacy is measured in a controlled clinical trial and is
based on how many people who got vaccinated developed the ‘outcome of interest’ (usually disease) compared with how many people who got the
placebo (dummy vaccine) developed the same outcome. Once the study is
complete, the numbers of sick people in each group are compared, in
order to calculate the relative risk of getting sick depending on
whether or not the subjects received the vaccine. From this we get the
efficacy – a measure of how much the vaccine lowered the risk of getting sick. If a vaccine has high efficacy, a lot fewer people in the group
who received the vaccine got sick than the people in the group who
received the placebo.

End quote.

Two-fold less death compared to unboosted and thirteen-fold compared to
unvaxed looks effective enough. If your infection is asymptomatic, are
you sick?

If you want to argue current vaccines aren't effective enough against
spread of COVID, we agree and you'll join me in calling for
non-pharmaceutical interventions, especially easy to achieve measures
such as improved ventilation, filtering (both mechanical and UV), and
masking where appropriate (indoor gatherings, etc).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 7:40:27 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

On 1/26/23 6:41 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 7:59:38 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

On 1/25/23 10:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

and the Vaxx comes up short.

But the findings mean the bivalent shots - which the US
Government paid $5billion for last autumn - fall short of the
World Health Organization's 50 percent efficacy threshold for an
effective vaccine.

Without citations, your claims aren't falsifiable.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11677059/CDC-study-finds-bivalent-Covid-vaccines-provide-strong-protection-against-XBB-1-5-variant.html

A report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
released Wednesday found the updated shots were just 48 percent
effective at stopping symptomatic infection caused by the XBB.1.5 subvariant for up to three months.

Yes, a misreading to get from "provide strong protection" to "comes up short."

Your subjective BS assessment of strong vs a documented and quantifiable
WHO metric.

You lose.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/27/23 7:14 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 7:40:27 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

On 1/26/23 6:41 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 7:59:38 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:

On 1/25/23 10:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

and the Vaxx comes up short.

But the findings mean the bivalent shots - which the US
Government paid $5billion for last autumn - fall short of the
World Health Organization's 50 percent efficacy threshold for an
effective vaccine.

Without citations, your claims aren't falsifiable.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11677059/CDC-study-finds-bivalent-Covid-vaccines-provide-strong-protection-against-XBB-1-5-variant.html

A report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
released Wednesday found the updated shots were just 48 percent
effective at stopping symptomatic infection caused by the XBB.1.5
subvariant for up to three months.

Yes, a misreading to get from "provide strong protection" to "comes up
short."

Your subjective BS assessment of strong vs a documented and quantifiable
WHO metric.

It's in the URL. Thank the Daily Mail.

You lose.

My quote is accurate. The CDC:

"Vaccine effectiveness is a measure of how well vaccination protects
people against outcomes such as infection, symptomatic illness, hospitalization, and death. Vaccine effectiveness is typically measured
through observational studies specifically designed to estimate
individual protection from vaccination under “real-world” conditions."

The Daily Mail chose a scary "MAJORITY...not protected" frame to
characterize 48% effectiveness against spread and much higher protection against serious illness and death.

It might also be mentioned the boosters were developed for older strains
of COVID and the newer XBB was at one time considered 'most vaccine
resistant strain ever'.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)