OTTO.
I said that 80% wasn’t VIABLE and cited many reasons including articles that you dismissed and instead chose to cherry pick data out of context. I stated very clearly that the closer to market vaccines aren’t being tested on elderly so it is likely they won’t work on the people most vulnerable.
Yes, you've already said that you know more than the researchers at Western. Have you reached out to them to tell them to stop trying?
And again... none of what you posted talks about the 60% efficacy rate , and a quote from the article you posted ""We have to be confident that we have a vaccine that's 100 per cent effective so you can build that wall of immunity" and in another of the articles you posted it says that they are working on a vaccine that can be used for everyone including older people .. so how exactly is that cherry picking? The articles you posted don't do anything to back up your claim and in fact state the opposite of what you are saying
Next Season (COVID-19 Discussion Thread)
Somehow when I say the vaccines were questionable and suggested mathematically 60% is probably the best possible case, I am crazy because the CEO’s of those developing them say they are going to be 90%+ effective.
You said that the CEO of the one company said they are hoping for 60% .. now you're saying 90%? I haven't seen anything that says 90% But when it comes down to it, I'll trust what the Canadian teams are working on.
Then Tam says Vaccines are not likely a realistic relief from the Virus and all of a sudden that is now a valid assessment? She didn’t even cite anything of consequence to back up her claim other than her opinion as if it were simple conversation.
Well... that's not exactly what she said...
Here are the quotes
"Dr. Theresa Tam used her briefing on Tuesday in Ottawa to temper expectations about the speed and effectiveness of a vaccine. She reiterated the importance of physical distancing, proper hand hygiene and mask-wearing,
and attempted to dissuade any notion that a vaccine will make life go back to the way it was in a couple of months."
She didn't say "never" she said in the next few months.. I never said anything different than that. In fact, here's the link to the post where I discussed this... nowhere did i mention any timeline about vaccines
Next Season (COVID-19 Discussion Thread)
Here's another quote from the article "Tam warned that even once a vaccine is tested and deemed to be both safe and effective, there will be challenges with distributing it widely to those who need it."
Yes.. we both talked about distribution...
""It's likely that there won't be enough vaccines for the population," said Tam. "So there'll be prioritization and we're looking at that."
Can't argue with that..
"Tam said she agreed with Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top infectious disease specialist in the U.S., who told Congress last week that he was
"cautiously optimistic" that a safe and effective vaccine will be available by the end of the year."
Even if it is ready.. that brings us back to distribution...
And this.... ""[A vaccine] is one important layer of protection," said Tam. "It is a very important solution if we get a safe and effective vaccine, but I would say that the public health measures that we have in place — the sort of personal, daily measures that we take — is going to have to continue."
So exactly what I have said over, and over, and over again... practice physical distancing, practice proper hand hygiene, and wear a mask.. something you seem to have an issue with...
It's ironic that you felt the need to call me out and "start a fight" as one other poster so eloquently puts it .. because there's really nothing in there that I have said to the contrary ... you on the other hand....
