[Tai_Chung]

Isn’t it 95% effective? That means it is ineffective for 1 out of 20 people.

[Jewbacca]

Correct.

Lots of people are bad at math.

Most are bad at statistics.

Hence stupid stories like this.

[qwerty1234]

>>Isn’t it 95% effective? That means it is ineffective for 1 out of 20 people.

and even for the ‘effective 95%’, it has only been advertised as a way to reduce the severity of the illness, not prevent someone for testing positive....i.e. keep you from ending up in the hospital and/or dying.

Jury is still out on wether or not that has been accomplished, but someone testing positive after getting vaccinated should be a surprise to no one that reads.

[babygene]

“Isn’t it 95% effective? That means it is ineffective for 1 out of 20 people.”

You can spin this however you want, but it’s not 5% of 20 people because most of the “people” (population) wouldn’t have gotten it in the first place. It would be 5% of the 1% of the people who would have susceptible.

(hint) Even low numbers DO matter,