There are 2 ways to interpret this :
people will be 95% protected from Covid
95% of people will be protected from covid
The reality is probably somewhere in between with some people being 100% protected and a small number with much lower protection.
As River mentioned, this was the reduction in reported symptoms during the trials last year. The situation this year is likely to be different due to the variants and also the length of time since people got their jab, with immunity levels likely to decline slowly over time, hence the possible requirement to get a further booster shot in the next 6-12 months
TL;DR. It probably doesn’t matter too much, but there’s little risk and potentially a small upside in terms of total immunity in waiting up to 12-16 weeks for the second dose, at the cost of lower immunity while you wait. Prob not worth worrying about.
The period of 3 weeks between vaccine shots was chosen to minimise the time to complete the trials, not to maximise the efficacy of the vaccine.
To a certain extent I would say that it doesn’t matter when you get the second shot, as you’ve already done the most important part in getting the first shot. You’re no longer going to die of
Covid. However I guess that you are trying to maximise both the efficacy of the vaccination and the duration of the protection.
Here it’s difficult to have a clear view because the situation is evolving rapidly and you also have to weigh the advantage of increasing your protection from (say) 80 → 94% rapidly against the potential added benefits of waiting 3 months. And this with the continued uncertainty of the variants and knowing that you will probably need another shot within the next 6-12 months.
I can’t currently find research for Pfizer but for AZ research shows that a gap of 12 weeks between doses leads to higher protection https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268
This is likely also true of all vaccines. The trade-off is the lower protection while you wait.
The reduction comes from the passage of time. Let’s say that a company predicts 10% growth over the year but 6 months into the year they have an equivalent annual growth rate of 2%. That doesn’t mean that they won’t make 10% at the end of the year, but it makes it less likely, so the value of the company changes to reflect that new reality.
It’s important to define risk and uncertainty. Risk in this case means probability of winning or loosing something, and can be measured, whereas uncertainty is about the lack of information about a situation and can not be measured as it is unknown. Uncertainty is reduced as more knowledge is gained about reality and as long-term risks become short-term risks, due to the passage of time, only to be replaced with new longer term
There are some really interesting concepts around the future value of money, opportunity costs and how to value companies. I’d recommend coursera finance 101 courses.
One word : risk. There is uncertainty as to the company’s ability to provide that future revenue and as That uncertainty reduces, the stock price goes up.
Maybe we shouldn’t (and a decision algorithm shouldn’t) put absolute (binary) limits on free speech, but should just reduce the exposure of ideas that have no scientific basis. Banning homeopathic information or research for example might mean that we miss out on a new discovery that we can’t measure today. “Turning down the volume” or reducing the ability to transmit ideas that have been proved (at least based on our current knowledge) to be scientifically invalid will stop people being fooled and wasting their money, or worse putting their health at risk.
Similarly requiring proof or evidence for any scientifically-based argument would at least stop charlatans and con-artists for whom the truth is just getting in the way of them making a fast buck.
Finally I want to reference Karl popper’s paradox of tolerance, which states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. In other words, there have to be limits on freedoms of speech. It’s not ok to shout “fire” in a theatre, nor is it ok to encourage your followers to subvert democracy by attempting an insurrection, to take a relevant recent example.
It’s unlikely that a human would be better than an AI at diagnosing covid as we already know that AI outperforms doctors on other diagnoses including breast cancer for example https://www.bbc.com/news/health-50857759
Of course everyone thinks they are excessively cautious drivers : https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/december/do-most-drivers-really-think-they-are-above-aver/
As to how I am dealing with risks—by making decisions based on the best available information. The risk of getting covid isn’t the same for all the population. Super spreader events are responsible for a large proportion of cases, and I am avoiding any possible super-spreader scenario. I don’t know anyone who has had covid in the past 5 months, so the risk of anyone I know having covid at the time I interact with them is extremely low. Add to that the interactions I have are few and far between, outside and respecting social distancing, and the personal risk of me contracting covid is vanishingly small.
I personally would rather continue to take that small risk as the benefits of social interaction overweigh the costs.
Why $100 000 ? Surely a better question would be how to maximise fun for the smallest possible cost?
Interesting insight—could you explain why you think they are dubious and politically motivated ? Thks