AndyTheBear wrote: “I did not take the bate because I did not modify the definition like you did to mean 100%.”
Do you agree with this claim often made by vaccine skeptics: “These can’t be vaccines because you can take the vaccine and still catch the disease”.
you speak like joe biden...
I do not know how often this specific claim is made.
However, a related sentiment I think that is common is that vaccines that are approved are expected to be more efficacious then the jabs turned out to be.
As a matter of fact, many pro-jab proponents stated plainly that if one got these jabs (they used the word vaccine) that one would not get covid. I have seen video of Fauci and of Biden and other jab promoters making this claim.
To be fair to them, I would not hold them to mean that the jab was explicitly 100% effective, but I think it fair to say that they were asserting it is close enough to 100% that one did not have to worry about getting covid after they got the jab.
Then reality happened and the efficacy narrative became a farce. The goal posts were supposedly set by clinical trials before the release to the public, and they kept sliding and sliding. They slid to 60 something percent I think you mentioned a bit ago. Not really confident that the slide will not continue though...just impossible to trust people who were so wrong.