If only I could resist. Alas, I’m a glutton for punishment.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
Vaccines get approved at 50%, which doesn't mean half of people exposed will get the virus.
What the 'effectiveness' number means in trials is not what people think. The 95% efficacy of Pfizer translates into protection for 99.95% of those vaccinated.
What does 95% COVID-19 vaccine efficacy really mean?
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Not really. The same reason a person would still get a vaccine that isn’t 100% effective is the same reason a company would require it. You greatly reduce your likelihood of being infected at all and if you are infected you are more likely to have a mild case and much more likely to avoid hospitalization or death.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I thought the CDC said the vaccines aren’t effective in stopping you from catching the Delta?
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Not a coin flip. An efficacy of zero would be a coin flip, meaning you would be just as likely to get infected vaccinated or unvaccinated.
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
They are less effective at preventing symptomatic infection and severe infections compared to previous strains, but they still are pretty effective overall.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
No not at all. Efficacy is still really high for the vaccines. It’s not 95% anymore but in the 80s with most studies.
Look at the numbers OC Florida puts out. Over 90% of positives are in the unvaccinated group.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
I know they are still quite effective at keeping you out of the hospital, but it sounded like they don’t really do much to keep you catching it period.
Disney Experience
Well-Known Member
Vaccine effectiveness is quoted is relative terms not absolute. I gave VE relative numbers not absolute numbers . ( See prior posts where I even described the use of it in studies).
The minimum VE in relative numbers that the FDA would have initially approved at the start of the pandemic was 50%. We got MRNAs in the 90s. It defies sound logic to say “Well FDA would have accepted a VE of 50% so why should they approve a booster. What value is there in 90% VE, 50% VE is good enough” I would take a jab to get back 90VE. If I was not part of the phase 3 Pfizer trial and had been vaccinated months later perhaps my personal VE would have been high enough not to come down with moderate covid in June, or if I got it later and boosters became available 8 months post 2nd shot the difference between a VE of 30-40% vs delta and 96% vs delta might have prevented the two weeks of suffering I went through and the stress that put my wife through. So yes I personally and scientifically disagree with your position that 50% VE without boosters is good enough to say FDA will not approve booster for general pop
Last edited:
Disney Experience
Well-Known Member
True.
LaughingGravy
Well-Known Member
Lower odds of getting sick and dying when the people going to work do just that, by what will be the majority of employees AND CUSTOMERS insisting on it and pushing for it with their wallets because it's the right thing to do.
It sucks to have to replace people if they're dead and have the company group insurance premiums go up.
The majority of large businesses will see it's in their best interest for many reasons. Small businesses...we will see. Like before, some will survive and some will die.
Polkadotdress
Well-Known Member
Another record-breaking day here in FL. Who here was saying that we’ve peaked???
The latest findings (not yet published and peer reviewed) is that, yes, a vaccinated person can be infected with COVID and be contagious.
BUT.... that is 'rare.'
How contagious and how rare? Still finding out. If you thought COVID was "novel," then every new variant is even more novel and needs time to be studied in order to understand what it can and can't do.
But the science on this part is very, very, very, very clear: a vaccinated population not only reduces the severity of infection but absolutely slows it down.
You wouldn't be suggesting that we stop vaccination drives and/or mandates just because the vaccine isn't a 100% effective shield, now, would you?
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Not true. The CDC never said the vaccines don’t do much to keep you from catching covid. The efficacy is still high. In recent studies out of the UK the efficacy was still 88% vs even mild infection. The reason the CDC changed their mask guidance for fully vaccinated people was related more to the overall community spread being really high. When cases explode like they have many places even though a breakthrough infection is still rare that occurrence happens more frequently as cases overall go up. As an example if efficacy is 85% and vaccination is split 50/50 each day we report 10,000 new cases we would have 1,500 breakthrough infections and 8,500 in unvaccinated people. When cases jump to 100,000 a day (like now) those numbers jump to 15,000 breakthrough and 85,000 in unvaccinated people. So as community spread rises your chance of being infected, even when vaccinated rises and when spread is high enough it makes sense to add in further mitigations like masks and distancing. That’s why the guidance is based on level of spread and not just anyone who is vaccinated.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Customers are insisting on both. The country is totally split on how to handle this.
LaughingGravy
Well-Known Member
Now, would you?
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
Yup, fighting COVID with Freedom... seems to be working out great.
Polkadotdress
Well-Known Member
Flori-duh.
LaughingGravy
Well-Known Member
I am content to wait and see. I don't think that split you are referencing is down the middle, though.
- Status