Er, why would 1,000 out of 20,000 be a surprising result for a vaccine billed as being 95% effective? What were they expecting?https://twitter.com/rkhamsi/status/1416163271904727046 …
-
-
(And now that I think about it, it's especially weird because I don't know why they would think "vaccinated" or "tested negative" were like, equivalent criteria. Like the 95% literally means vaccinated people will be carrying this virus! 95% is not 100%! So weird :( )
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.