Yes, 0.84% Absolute Risk Reduction sounds small. But how do we decide if it's negligible? I'm playing the devil's advocate, but hospitals seem to think that it will keep them from being overrun with infectious patients.
The only way to argue against that is by also considering vaccine harm.
Yes, 0.84% Absolute Risk Reduction sounds small. But how do we decide if it's negligible? I'm playing the devil's advocate, but hospitals seem to think that it will keep them from being overrun with infectious patients.
The only way to argue against that is by also considering vaccine harm.
Even when NYC sped up its curve by infecting all the at-risk at once, the hospitals weren't overrun. The only way they will be overrun today -- 2 years later -- is if the vaccine does more harm than good.
Yes, 0.84% Absolute Risk Reduction sounds small. But how do we decide if it's negligible? I'm playing the devil's advocate, but hospitals seem to think that it will keep them from being overrun with infectious patients.
The only way to argue against that is by also considering vaccine harm.
Because 0.84% is negligible! It is risk of infection, not risk of developing disease.
But didn't they have pretty fast and loose rules with the vaccine cohort on actually testing them ? So, even the 0.84% number is bogus.
Even when NYC sped up its curve by infecting all the at-risk at once, the hospitals weren't overrun. The only way they will be overrun today -- 2 years later -- is if the vaccine does more harm than good.
Or if the hospitals are cutting capacity. Which they have been, deliberately or inadvertently.