Dave, Jan 16 @18:14: ” … despite there only being a 0.07% mortality rate, of mostly the elderly.”
ET, Jan 17 @ 00:34: “Show me how you got to 0.07%. … I contest the 0.07% figure and I ask you to show your derivation of it. “
I still can’t figure out how you arrived at that figure, Dave. When you got your sums wrong at school did your maths teacher not tell you to show your working? (“I just thought up a number” doesn’t qualify.)
Perhaps you didn’t derive it yourself but picked it up from another source. I went on a web trawl and found it repeated here.
“The prospect of a very expensive 95% effective novel-vaccine may seem good news, except anything counts as a 95% effective vaccine against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 0.07%!”
That guy’s status as a local politician might seem to lend him some credibility but he actually seems to be a bit of a nutter with an “extreme libertarian ideology” whose “comments have sparked a backlash from the local community” – Rainham councillor condemned for claiming Covid-19 threat has been inflated.
Did you pick it up from there or another antivaxxer fansite? If it came from an extreme right-wing echo chamber then that hardly counts as a valid source. BNP types aren’t renowned for their statistical abilities!