I didn't say that the vaccine isn't effective. I'm saying this is nowhere near "incredibly effective".

The post you cited is helpful. However, it is confusing the definition of efficacy. There were debates on what the efficacy meant when Pfizer and Moderna reported their high numbers. But there was *NO* definition saying that 94% efficacy means 94% of vaccinated people won't get SERIOUSLY sick. Most commonly, it meant either (1) 94% people will have lower chance of getting COVID (i.e. getting tested positive)[1], or (2) 94% people will have a lower chance of getting sick [2].

Now the post you cited essentially says 94% people won't get SERIOUSLY sick. This just proves that neither (1) or (2) above is true.

[1] https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-explai... [2] https://time.com/5945177/covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness/

Both [1] and [2] predate Delta so I don't know what you're on about.

Not to mention recently discovered waning immunity. So [1] and [2] could definitely have been true at the time.

Did the root comment say this is "INCREDIBLY" effective before Delta? Why is it so hard to understand what I'm trying to convey here? It's not "INCREDIBLY" effective now.

Now waning immunity - did Pfizer or Moderna warn the world about it? Did they warn us about potential variants? Absolutely no, right? They posted the high numbers to pump their stock price. Vaccines are effective to some extent. But those two companies are not credible.

The other important piece of information is that vaccinations were not given out homogeneously.

The older and more vulnerable were vaccinated FIRST and at a higher rate, so seeing more of them hospitalized now 6 months later with a variant is not unexpected.

What it really means, is that those same patients would probably be in the morgue, not the hospital if it wasn't for the vaccine.

Pro-vaxxer will not answer your original question. The fact is it is not incredibly effective now as Pfizer and Moderna effectiveness have drop to 70%+ and 40%+ respectively from their earlier 95%. 60% are hospitalize that means it is severe that warrant hospitalization. If it is incredibly effective, "hospitalization" for vaccinated should be under a few percentage point. Take a look at historical smallpox and polio vaccination. Now that is incredible effective. Vast majority of pro-vaxxer aren't aware of old stats, while predominantly getting over excited by media outlet or their less informed doctors acquintances. To be fair, those vaccines originally targeting earlier variant of Covid. Now you have Delta, likely Delta+ and Lambda or some more deadlier version of variants, the vaccine can only go down in effectiveness in coming 6mths. In fact, you should be hearing people getting those vaccines died due to immunity waning in coming 6mths. Expect booster shots and annual jabs just like flu shots.

“Pro-vaxxed” aka people who believe in science and social responsibility.

Also, the effectiveness is lower against variants like delta, and does naturally decrease over time. If we had higher vaccination rates, the spread of covid would be significantly reduced, and variants wouldn’t be such a large problem.

Also also, MRNA vaccines — EVEN AT 70% — far outperform existing vaccines like the one for seasonal influenza.

Also also also, where the hell are you getting 40% for moderna’s VE? I’d love to see a citation.

Oh, regarding “old stats” like the effectiveness of the smallpox vaccine: Surprise! No controlled studies on its effectiveness. Surprise! It has significantly more risk (both in terms of the danger of the adverse side effects and their incidence).

I’m guessing you’re not an epidemiologist?

The Simpson's paradox seems to refer to something else:

https://twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1428014414666420230