[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Tmarkwald

That is unverified at this time. If you read the language it is designed to cover all the bases for legal reasons. So far there haven't been any confirmed cases past the 4 week mark after the second shot.

Wasn't the 95% number derived from the reduction of cases in the vaccinated portion of the trial? If so then there must have been some confirmed cases during the trials or they would have claimed 100% effective.

If the vaccines are 95% effective then the chance of becoming infected after vaccination is small but it is not zero.

[Tmarkwald]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Wasn't the 95% number derived from the reduction of cases in the vaccinated portion of the trial? If so then there must have been some confirmed cases during the trials or they would have claimed 100% effective.

If the vaccines are 95% effective then the chance of becoming infected after vaccination is small but it is not zero.

Just like other vaccines, the inoculation does not take in certain people. So, although 95% are protected, the other 5% can possibly catch and carry the virus. Of those that can possibly be infected, they'd have to come in contact with another person who is infected.

My point was that it hasn't been shown that successfully inoculated people can carry the virus. We can safely assume that the 5% who were unsuccessful in getting inoculated could carry the virus.

Some people undoubtedly will not have an inoculation 'take'. I am one of those rare people that had the smallpox vaccine given to me many times. It never 'took'. I never got the smallpox 'scar' so every year they would consistently give me another one. Did no good. never scarred, never blistered. Last time they tried was when I entered boot camp.

It will be interesting as time goes by and booster shots are given if that 5% dwindles down to nearly zero. Of course, there's no easy way to tell except Covid would simply go away, like SARS, MERS, etc..

[DeanFL]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Wasn't the 95% number derived from the reduction of cases in the vaccinated portion of the trial? If so then there must have been some confirmed cases during the trials or they would have claimed 100% effective.

If the vaccines are 95% effective then the chance of becoming infected after vaccination is small but it is not zero.

.
.
Must say I am befuddled by all this 95% - 5% stuff. I tend to use analogies all the time.

So for this one, I'd say - if you're a senior and you may have a strong chance to develop, perhaps-fatal, coronary heart disease or cancer or dementia (you name the disease), and there was a medication/vaccine that has been tested to be 95% EFFECTIVE - would you question getting it?
For me, it's a slam-dunk. period.
.
.

[Ecuadog]

We are booked on an Azamara cruise come this November, but might cancel for a reason other than Covid.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Wasn't the 95% number derived from the reduction of cases in the vaccinated portion of the trial? If so then there must have been some confirmed cases during the trials or they would have claimed 100% effective.

If the vaccines are 95% effective, then the chance of becoming infected after vaccination is small but it is not zero.

Both vaccines give 100% chance of NOT getting hospitalized and dying from CV. There is, however, a 5% chance that you get CV but the symptoms are mostly mild.

[G.R.I.T.S.]

We visited family twice last year. Took all necessary precautions. Stayed in hotels. Used common sense.

[60North]

The "fear" of the disease hasn't stopped me from travelling yet, vaccine or no vaccine, only the legal restrictions (Europe and others) have been a limitation. I now have my second vaccination, but yellow fever, dengue fever (which I have contracted), malaria and so many other diseases haven't prevented my travel, neither will this.