My core reaction is, the very idea of a 22% decline in vaccine effectiveness per month doesn’t make any mathematical sense, until I figured out it meant a 22% increase in vaccine ineffectiveness. As in, if you are 99% effective in month one, and then you have a 22% ‘decline in effectiveness’ you would be… 98.8% effective. Or if you were 95% before, you’re 94% now. Which doesn’t sound to me like a 22% decline in effectiveness, even if true.
This is an extremely good point. I would absolutely not have guessed that’s what they meant by a 22% decline in effectiveness. I would have thought “99% effective − 22% decline = 77% effective.” Surely the authors knew this.
This is an extremely good point. I would absolutely not have guessed that’s what they meant by a 22% decline in effectiveness. I would have thought “99% effective − 22% decline = 77% effective.” Surely the authors knew this.