Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, the numbers don't make any sense. We saved 20 million but could have saved 600,000 more? So we saved 97% of the people it was possible to save? How exactly does that work when we're nowhere near 97% vaccination coverage?
Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, the numbers don't make any sense. We saved 20 million but could have saved 600,000 more? So we saved 97% of the people it was possible to save? How exactly does that work when we're nowhere near 97% vaccination coverage?
Well, for starters, let's just assume the vaccines actually work, actually save lives. (Set aside any doubts you may have, just for a moment.)
Now, it should be theoretically possible to save 97% of the people who were going to die from Covid without vaccinating 97% of the population. All we had to do is focus the vaccination campaign on the elderly, the immune compromised and other folks known to be vulnerable.
Further, if it happens to be true that under vaccinated places (like, say, the developing world) have large numbers of young people and relatively few elderly people, only a relatively small number of lives could be saved.
I'm not saying this is what actually happened, just that, theoretically, if the vaccines are highly effective and if we know in advance who's vulnerable to dying from Covid, we wouldn't need to vaccinate all that many people to save almost every vulnerable person.
But, OTOH, I'm not saying this study is great and reliable and true. I'm not saying the vaccines are all that effective. I'm not saying that only 600,000 Covid vulnerable people were to be found in the developing world.
Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, the numbers don't make any sense. We saved 20 million but could have saved 600,000 more? So we saved 97% of the people it was possible to save? How exactly does that work when we're nowhere near 97% vaccination coverage?
Pure garbage.
Well, for starters, let's just assume the vaccines actually work, actually save lives. (Set aside any doubts you may have, just for a moment.)
Now, it should be theoretically possible to save 97% of the people who were going to die from Covid without vaccinating 97% of the population. All we had to do is focus the vaccination campaign on the elderly, the immune compromised and other folks known to be vulnerable.
Further, if it happens to be true that under vaccinated places (like, say, the developing world) have large numbers of young people and relatively few elderly people, only a relatively small number of lives could be saved.
I'm not saying this is what actually happened, just that, theoretically, if the vaccines are highly effective and if we know in advance who's vulnerable to dying from Covid, we wouldn't need to vaccinate all that many people to save almost every vulnerable person.
But, OTOH, I'm not saying this study is great and reliable and true. I'm not saying the vaccines are all that effective. I'm not saying that only 600,000 Covid vulnerable people were to be found in the developing world.
Where do they get any of their numbers? They make them up, pure and simple. Some stupid party moron makes them up.