[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Anyone can see that those figures do not present efficacy against infection, which as you say is an objective fact.

You almost acknowledged the difference above.



So to that end realise that efficacy against infection is not 90%+, but you don’t think it matters anyway.

For everyone's benefit, and to enable judgements to be made, here is an extract from the BMJ article:

Of 172 infections detected, 161 occurred in the unvaccinated arm of the trial, which saw a rate of 1.38 infections per 1000 person days. Among participants who had received only one shot at least 14 days previously, the rate was 0.19 infections per 1000 person days. Among those who had received a second shot at least 14 days previously, it was 0.04 per 1000 person days.

This translated to an adjusted vaccine effectiveness of 90% with full immunisation (95% confidence interval 68% to 97%) and of 80% with partial immunisation (59% to 90%). Adjustment for age, sex, race, or study location barely changed these results.

It is the confidence interval that makes the 90% non-solid.