My mistake in the terminology then. Vaccines are 95% effective against any SARS-2 infection.
I'll give you that.
The CDC puts that number at 90%, not that the CDC has a track record of truth on this matter. By their own admission, the Pfizer vaccine does not prevent infection, but only prevents you from getting sick from infection. This alone contradicts their 80% (one shot) and 90% (two shots) claim. But that is what they are claiming nonetheless.
Would you please share a link to 85% of no symptoms. Everything I have found so far is from 25% to 45%, the higher I shared above.
@thackney I admit that the 6-in-7 number was reported early on. Since then that number has been reduced to 2 in 5.
My deep apologies for the obsolete number. It is never my intent to mislead or deceive. Here is a source from Sept of last year:
Asymptomatic persons seem to account for approximately 40% to 45% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, although the source goes on to say that asymptomatic people are contagious, which other studies dispute.
My overall point here is to show that we are being bombarded with contradictory information. Let's re-adjust the numbers and assume a 40% asymptomatic rate and a 90% effectiveness rate for the vaccine against infection. This translates to a 6% Covid rate with the vaccine compared to a 60% Covid rate without for those internally exposed to the virus. This is a tenfold risk rate compared to the threefold risk rate claimed previously.
Add to that the probability of internal exposure which differs greatly from person to person. Is the individual constantly touch their face because of the mask. Do they wash their hands every 20 minutes? Do they inhale the same indoor air with 500 other people sharing the same ventilation system? How much time do they spend outdoors in the sunlight which reduces their chance of exposure? By following simple guidelines of hand washing, avoiding facial contact with hands, spending extended time in the sun, robust indoor ventilation, keeping distance from others, and avoiding anything that even remotely inhibits breathing, an individual can reduce their chance of exposure by several magnitudes.
Hypothetical: Let's say for example that a person follows the ideal set of guidelines and reduces their chance of exposure to 0.0001%. Then the difference in getting the vaccine vs. not getting the vaccine changes to 0.00006% vs. 0.000006%. In other words, behavioral and environmental changes are far more effective than a vaccine alone, so much so that the vaccine becomes insignificant. So the question now comes down to how risk-adverse each individual is. For the person above, does the benefit of increasing one's protection from 0.00006% to 0.000006% outweigh the 0.0001% chance of a negative reaction from the vaccine.
Of course for the person who never washes their hands, touches their face constantly, never ventures outdoors, and shares the same NY apartment air with 1,000 other residents, his/her risk of exposure is several magnitudes greater. So as a person approaches the 60% vs. 6% comparison with 100% exposure, their risk analysis may push them towards the vaccine.
Also worth factoring in is the risk assessment of Covid. To some, missing a few days from work with flu-like symptoms may be preferable to losing the use of your arm for a day or two which recently happened to a work colleague.
