Originally Posted by
Tfork
Ok, thanks for using the CDC data, I didn't check your math but let's assume you're spot on. So 24k of extra cases that go out there (in many cases) spread it to others, who then spread it to others…
That would assume the daily case rate stay constant, which we know it doesn’t…
I don't think I ever said it does justify firing people but it's certainly not minuscule. And saving 24k^nth cases per day is pretty darn effective. Why don't you email the CDC to see if they agree with your assessment. You're going to be surprised.
For starters it’s not 24K cases a day, not sure where you get that, but yes, maybe some subset of the 41k would likely not have gotten infected if vaccinated - what that number is? unknown without understanding a ton of variables about the infected groups - age, exposure, immunity, etc.
Yes, it is a snapshot in time. Is there a logical reason to believe vaccination provides better protection depending on the month or day or year? Otherwise, shouldn’t the ratios be about the same over time?
This is pretty solid though - to summarize - vaccination reduced risk of infection from .0124% to .0052% for this dataset. That is good enough for you to call “effective”. Not good enough for Rochelle and I. Have a great day.