Here's a thought.

A virus that has a recovery rate between 94% and 99.97% (depending on age) and most of it's cases are asymptomatic*...It Would be easy to make a vaccine with 90% effectiveness because your immune system is already 90% resistant to CV19... So, that means I can mix some water and sugar at home and i just made a vaccine 90% effective against CV19... So, the real question is, what's in the 10% of the vaccine that's not effective against CV19

OR

The vaccine is 90% effective for a virus that 99% recover from lol. The immune system beats the vaccine, as usual.

Disclaimer, I am not an anti-vaccer, but I will be anti this one.

Quote: Miro "Here's a thought. A virus that has a recovery rate between 94% and 99.97% (depending on age) and most of it's cases are asymptomatic*...It Would be easy to make a vaccine with 90% effectiveness because your immune system is already 90% resistant to CV19... So, that means I can mix some water and sugar at home and i just made a vaccine 90% effective against CV19... So, the real question is, what's in the 10% of the vaccine that's not effective against CV19 OR The vaccine is 90% effective for a virus that 99% recover from lol. The immune system beats the vaccine, as usual. The full results are not published yet, but the 90% refers to the 43,000 people who took part in the trial, 94 infections have been detected to far and over 90% of those are in the placebo group. The trial is ongoing and needs a total of 164 infections before the data are valid. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart ... e-ongoing/

Quote: Miro "Here's a thought. A virus that has a recovery rate between 94% and 99.97% (depending on age) and most of it's cases are asymptomatic*...It Would be easy to make a vaccine with 90% effectiveness because your immune system is already 90% resistant to CV19... So, that means I can mix some water and sugar at home and i just made a vaccine 90% effective against CV19... So, the real question is, what's in the 10% of the vaccine that's not effective against CV19 OR The vaccine is 90% effective for a virus that 99% recover from lol. The immune system beats the vaccine, as usual. The full results are not published yet, but the 90% refers to the 43,000 people who took part in the trial, 94 infections have been detected to far and over 90% of those are in the placebo group. The trial is ongoing and needs a total of 164 infections before the data are valid. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart ... e-ongoing/

Quote: coco the fullback "The full results are not published yet, but the 90% refers to the 43,000 people who took part in the trial, 94 infections have been detected to far and over 90% of those are in the placebo group. The trial is ongoing and needs a total of 164 infections before the data are valid. Really? Then what does this mean? From your link. No mention of the 43,000 “with early data from their promising vaccine candidate showing that it could be 90% effective at preventing the disease with no serious safety concerns observed. “ with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration signalling that it would accept a Covid-19 vaccine effective in only half of those vaccinated. The positive results mean the companies are likely on track to meet their mid-November goal of filing for emergency regulatory approval in the U.S., I can't see anywhere in that article where it points to the 90% infections only in the placebo group. I believe the November vaccine (yet to be peer reviewed) cannot be considered safe due to no data at all for the long term affects the vaccine may have on the human immune system. see below. As quoted by the CDC “These stages are mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with its for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) division officially in charge of regulating vaccines. It’s not unusual for a vaccine to take 10 to 15 years to complete all the phases under normal circumstances. Yet this vaccine is being rushed through in a matter of months, not even a year. Considering A virus that has a recovery rate between 94% and 99.97% (depending on age) and most of it's cases are asymptomatic why the rush for a vaccine? Furthermore, a rushed vaccine that isn’t properly tested could ultimately prove to be just as dangerous as the virus. That's according to: https://www.reference.com/science/how-l ... op-vaccine

Quote: coco the fullback "The full results are not published yet, but the 90% refers to the 43,000 people who took part in the trial, 94 infections have been detected to far and over 90% of those are in the placebo group. The trial is ongoing and needs a total of 164 infections before the data are valid. Really? Then what does this mean? From your link. No mention of the 43,000 “with early data from their promising vaccine candidate showing that it could be 90% effective at preventing the disease with no serious safety concerns observed. “ with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration signalling that it would accept a Covid-19 vaccine effective in only half of those vaccinated. The positive results mean the companies are likely on track to meet their mid-November goal of filing for emergency regulatory approval in the U.S., I can't see anywhere in that article where it points to the 90% infections only in the placebo group. I believe the November vaccine (yet to be peer reviewed) cannot be considered safe due to no data at all for the long term affects the vaccine may have on the human immune system. see below. As quoted by the CDC “These stages are mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with its for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) division officially in charge of regulating vaccines. It’s not unusual for a vaccine to take 10 to 15 years to complete all the phases under normal circumstances. Yet this vaccine is being rushed through in a matter of months, not even a year. Considering A virus that has a recovery rate between 94% and 99.97% (depending on age) and most of it's cases are asymptomatic why the rush for a vaccine? Furthermore, a rushed vaccine that isn’t properly tested could ultimately prove to be just as dangerous as the virus. That's according to: https://www.reference.com/science/how-l ... op-vaccine

Quote: Miro "] Yes I looked at your link Coco, Johns Hopkins University coronavirus experts A Bill Gates funded university. Someone set to make billions from the vaccine. I mean, hardly likely to endorse the former head of Pfzer are they? Do you have any evidence disputing Former Chief Scientific Advisor with Pfizer Dr Mike Yeadon from an organization that does not have a conflict of interest?'" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 50133.html I don't know why I'm doing this. You quoted the claim, you provide the evidence it's true. It's not my job to prove your spurious assertions to be false. Have you provided any evidence about false positives?

Quote: Miro "] Yes I looked at your link Coco, Johns Hopkins University coronavirus experts A Bill Gates funded university. Someone set to make billions from the vaccine. I mean, hardly likely to endorse the former head of Pfzer are they? Do you have any evidence disputing Former Chief Scientific Advisor with Pfizer Dr Mike Yeadon from an organization that does not have a conflict of interest?'" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 50133.html I don't know why I'm doing this. You quoted the claim, you provide the evidence it's true. It's not my job to prove your spurious assertions to be false. Have you provided any evidence about false positives?

A bike helmet covers more of your face than a mask.
And I can tell someone's feelings while they have a mask on. It's not hard.

Weren't you getting upset about name calling earlier?
Seems you pick and choose your logic, inhuman definition and names that upset you depending on whether it affects your point.

Quote: Miro "Really? Then what does this mean? From your link. No mention of the 43,000 “with early data from their promising vaccine candidate showing that it could be 90% effective at preventing the disease with no serious safety concerns observed. “ with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration signalling that it would accept a Covid-19 vaccine effective in only half of those vaccinated.  The positive results mean the companies are likely on track to meet their mid-November goal of filing for emergency regulatory approval in the U.S., I can't see anywhere in that article where it points to the 90% infections only in the placebo group. I believe the November vaccine yet to be peer reviewed cannot be considered safe due to no data at all for the long term affects the vaccine may have on the human immune system. see below. As quoted by the CDC “These stages are mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with its Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) division officially in charge of regulating vaccines. It’s not unusual for a vaccine to take 10 to 15 years to complete all the phases under normal circumstances. Yet this vaccine is being rushed through in a matter of months, not even a year. Considering A virus that has a recovery rate between 94% and 99.97% (depending on age) and most of it's cases are asymptomatic why the rush for a vaccine? Furthermore, a rushed vaccine that isn’t properly tested could ultimately prove to be just as dangerous as the virus. That's according toKEY FACTS The positive results mean the companies are likely on track to meet their mid-November goal of filing for emergency regulatory approval in the U.S., which CEO Albert Bourla announced a month ago. The findings come from a preliminary analysis — undertaken by an independent data monitoring board — of [i[sizea study that has enrolled over 43,000 people to test the two-dose Covid-19 vaccine[/size[/i. The early results, which may change as the trial continues, are far better than many had expected, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration signalling that it would accept a Covid-19 vaccine effective in only half of those vaccinated. The study will continue until 164 infections have been recorded, the company said, with 94 infections reported to date. Ugur Sahin, co-founder and CEO of BioNTech, said the findings are “a victory for innovation, science and a global collaborative effort.” With the trial ongoing, these findings have not yet been peer reviewed or opened up for scrutiny, with Pfizer saying it intends to do so once the entire trial has finished. '" What else do you think "90% effective" means in the context of the trial? https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/ ... tion6.html How does someone with no symptoms recover? recover from what?

Quote: Miro "Really? Then what does this mean? From your link. No mention of the 43,000 “with early data from their promising vaccine candidate showing that it could be 90% effective at preventing the disease with no serious safety concerns observed. “ with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration signalling that it would accept a Covid-19 vaccine effective in only half of those vaccinated.  The positive results mean the companies are likely on track to meet their mid-November goal of filing for emergency regulatory approval in the U.S., I can't see anywhere in that article where it points to the 90% infections only in the placebo group. I believe the November vaccine yet to be peer reviewed cannot be considered safe due to no data at all for the long term affects the vaccine may have on the human immune system. see below. As quoted by the CDC “These stages are mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with its Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) division officially in charge of regulating vaccines. It’s not unusual for a vaccine to take 10 to 15 years to complete all the phases under normal circumstances. Yet this vaccine is being rushed through in a matter of months, not even a year. Considering A virus that has a recovery rate between 94% and 99.97% (depending on age) and most of it's cases are asymptomatic why the rush for a vaccine? Furthermore, a rushed vaccine that isn’t properly tested could ultimately prove to be just as dangerous as the virus. That's according toKEY FACTS The positive results mean the companies are likely on track to meet their mid-November goal of filing for emergency regulatory approval in the U.S., which CEO Albert Bourla announced a month ago. The findings come from a preliminary analysis — undertaken by an independent data monitoring board — of [i[sizea study that has enrolled over 43,000 people to test the two-dose Covid-19 vaccine[/size[/i. The early results, which may change as the trial continues, are far better than many had expected, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration signalling that it would accept a Covid-19 vaccine effective in only half of those vaccinated. The study will continue until 164 infections have been recorded, the company said, with 94 infections reported to date. Ugur Sahin, co-founder and CEO of BioNTech, said the findings are “a victory for innovation, science and a global collaborative effort.” With the trial ongoing, these findings have not yet been peer reviewed or opened up for scrutiny, with Pfizer saying it intends to do so once the entire trial has finished. '" What else do you think "90% effective" means in the context of the trial? https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/ ... tion6.html How does someone with no symptoms recover? recover from what?

Wrencat (me) was being ironic, didn't you notice.

I find it unbelievable for ANY person to believe that, a vaccine for covid is any more or less controlling that a vaccine for flu, MMR (or the 3 single vaccines), TB or any other mass inoculation.

I find it utterly ridiculous that gullible people are so easily taken in by the overthought ramblings of a few individuals on t'internet.

Questions do need to be asked and answers found for where the virus came from but, beyond that, it's both sad and hilarious (in equal measure) that ANYONE can believe that EVERY government has been taken in by some unknown new world order, as opposed to them trying to protect the population of the planet.

At least it's helped keep us occupied whilst in lockdown

Wow. I just clicked on David Icke's web page. There are quite a few references on there that are similar to yours Miro. I'm getting a bit worried for you now.

Here we go, that old guilty by association trick, pathetic Pop Tart. C'mon pal, raise your game.

I do not read David Icke. Maybe you can tell everyone what he is saying and why he is wrong. Why worried? Do tell.