Mainstream media don't want you to know the difference between vaccines that work and vaccines that

I made it clear that I was showing that the % is not the best indictor to look at

that is why a vaccine with 95% and one with 75% might both be just as good

 

"The fact that one can fool a cholesterol test means absolutely nothing in regards to whether a person should or should not take a statin. If fooling your doctor is your goal, I suggest not going in the first place."

it's not fooling anything, it's the way the body works - what you eat the prev 5 days makes the results what they are - it's not fooling anything

you may think that is not important, but many would disagree - if a test results can be changed by how much fat\carbs you eat during the prev 5 days, then that invalidates the tests usefulness

 

It depends upon what is being measured and what is the endpoint of the study. Not all studies look at a percentage. Most look at a higher or lower score that is being used to measure the endpoint of a particular study.

With a Covid vaccine, a percentage reduction in infections is absolutely a logical means of assessing its effectiveness. With 30k participants, you are not talking about 19 people in the placebo arm versus one in the control group that got the virus (which is what would produce a 95% result. You are probably talking about 3000 in the placebo group that got infected versus 150 in the active group. That is what would achieve statistical significance. Your ridiculously low numbers have no bearing on reality.

Comparing an active versus a control group is the ONLY means of scientifically assessing a drug's efficacy. I am not sure how you are possibly trying to imply otherwise.

Statistical significance means that if you repeat that same experiment, at least 95% of the time ( the threshold for statistical significance) the drug that showed superior efficacy is going to again show superior efficacy. 5% of the time the results will be reversed which is considered a statistical anomaly. With a large scale study such as the vaccine trials, the odds that a drug that shows 75% efficacy versus one that shows 95% efficacy is the same are astronomical. Such a wide variance would not produce a 5% error rate especially with a very large scale trial. It would be FAR lower due to statistical methods that are above my paygrade and far too complex to get into here. Suffice it to say a 95-90% difference could be easily switched. A 75 to 95 however?...not so much.

 

depends, I am just saying don't just depend on that number

it's effected by things like how wide spread the virus is at the time of testing, ect...

lots of people only want Pfizer as they think it's got the best %, but that doesn't mean the others are not just as effective

 

Indeed it does depend upon a wide range of factors, and my point is that the concept of statistical significance is entered into the equation for that very reason.

At any rate, in regards to the J&J vaccine, it is not seemingly as effective at preventing any level of infection, but I believe it is very similar in regards to hospitalizations which is the biggest concern with the virus. I think the argument you would want to make in regards to it being equally effective is not that percentages are misleading, but rather that you can never compare one study to another. Those results are never accepted as valid. There are differing methods, differing endpoints, differing rating methods, differing raters, differing locations, differing patient populations, differing disease strains etc. These differences make comparisons invalid, at least from a scientific standpoint.

 

For the foreign policy implications of ours being successful and the Chinese being utter failures in our Cold War battles for economic and global influence.

 

I think the LSM, as you call them, are more focused on making sure people in our own country realize that our vaccines work, and are necessary.

And your links included both CNBC and Bloomberg News, making your thread seem like little more than a very poor pretext for an attack on our media. But thanks for the interesting, albeit less-than-headline-grabbing, info.

My skepticism of your thesis about China's vaccine being ineffective, however, is borne of the Chinese having got Covid-19 under control in their own country. Might I suggest that, if vaccine efficacy were your true interest, this would merit greater scrutiny? Are the Chinese lying about having their own epidemic under control? Or are their quality control measures just woefully lacking-- my vote! Or are they purposely sending bogus vaccines to certain countries? Why? These questions seem far more interesting topics, than does just one more thread about how we can't trust the MSM. Don't you think?

 

I do not trust any of China’s numbers as to how many of them were infected or died of the disease.

 

Which I don't blame you for, in the least. The question, though, is do they now have it under control (which would be a hard thing to hide, if they did not), and does their vaccine have anything to do with it? And, if not, what is their efficacious, alternative method?

 

Martial law and disappearing people.

 

Why should we try and hate China? Just last year a certain politician said this:

 

While China's numbers are likely fiction, you are correct to point out that a widespread outbreak would be impossible to hide. China is not North Korea, and even they were unable to hide the famines that took place there some years ago.

 

The whole point of this thread is to complain that a couple of articles didn't attack a Chinese vaccine not currently in use in America in their headlines. Not that they didn't discuss the failures of the vaccine, just that it isn't in the headlines. Says an awful lot about the OP & the expected readership of American Thinker that they think this os worthy of an article or a thread.

 

Through decades of efforts, man has never been able to come up with a functional vaccine against the coronavirus.

 

Which one is 'ours' again?

 

Foreign policy implications such as what? Sounds like "my vaccine can beat up your vaccine." I really don't think Xi cares. Nor do 99.999% of Americans.

 

It's the stuff Newsmax dreams are made of!

 

Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

 

The countries that got useless Chinese vaccines and then their problems are solved by ours will care. It’s sad that you think most Americans think nothing of foreign policy or economic interests.

 

That's some bizarre strawman you got there.

What I think is that whining about CNN like some control freak has no effect on nor relevance to foreign policy. Nor does fantasizing about "our vaccines" (whatever they are) coming to the rescue like some white knight. Your argument is lacking in cohesion.

 

Where did it come from?

 

My argument is an American first message. And that the msm is hiding from us the utter failure of our Chinese communist regime enemy.

 

China