>NZ is all-in with Pfizer, which Israel says is 39% effective against Delta variant. This is confirmed by a very good pre-print Mayo study saying 42%

Here's my issue with that (and this is not directed towards you)...the definition of "effective". I'm not challenging the 39 and 42 numbers - just want the context is.

If it's 39% effective against acquiring enough viral load that I don't test positive, I'm not necessarily scared. Since the vaccine still provides much higher protection against serious illness, that's what's more important to me.

And yes, I realize there are some in-betweens....I've been vaxxed twice with Pfizer, and I realize I could get a nasty cold/flu symptoms - not enough to put me in the hospital, but enough to knock me on my ass for a few days. As an allergy person, been there and done that.

The vaccine has proven, though not perfect, to the the one major positive step forward. If I were any more pro-vaxx, I'd walk around jabbing people with needles.

When I hear a news person say, "X percent effective" without qualifying, it is clear to me that the news person (or whoever wrote the news copy) doesn't give a GGDSFF about context - they just feel morally superior that they can quote a number.

This last year and a half has shown such brazen stupid and ignorance and lack of adult process of thought - on both political sides. We talk about "voter ID" and "vaccine ID" cards...I'm beginning to think we need another way to identify people - whether or not they can cite and interpret numbers for what they are and what they aren't. There are days when I think this government has outlawed denominators.