Helpblog502

• 'It's not a good fit' could really mean that they don't think you'll be happy in the organization or mesh with their working pace or style. That's not a diss or an insult to you. I always say 'If.
• Synonyms for not really include not very, not overly, not terribly, not, not exactly, by no means, certainly not, in no way, not at all and not by any means. Find more similar words at wordhippo.com!

But that's a percentage of a percentage, a ratio of a ratio, something called the 'relative rate' in the medical profession. What this really means is that, of the 1.23% of people who would have gotten the virus in the vaccinated group, 94% of them didn't. But Moderna isn't testing 30,000 people who are infected with the virus, or even 15,000.

A note before I begin: This is not a recommendation not to be vaccinated against Coronavirus. It’s an encouragement to decide for yourself and your family when to be vaccinated and which vaccine to choose based on the most accurate information available. That said, let’s proceed.

'Done right, vaccines end pandemics. Done wrong, pandemics end vaccines.'
—Andy Slavitt here

People in the United States, along with people in all of the rest of the world, are eager for a vaccine that provides immunity to the Covid-19 virus. Drug manufacturers, with a market of tens of billions of injections to sell into, are eager to roll one off the production line. Both groups are highly incentivized to get a vaccine into distribution quickly.

Hundreds of Billions in Potential Revenue

Let's look at the revenue side first. Here, for example, is what the three leading vaccine candidates are projected to cost in the UK according to a recent Sky News piece:

In two years the earth is projected to hold 8 billion people, and most leading vaccine candidates require at least two doses. Let's be conservative: If Moderna, say, sold its Covid vaccine to 1 billion people at ₤28 (about $37) per dose, the revenue stream from those sales would turn into real money fast — $74 billion in revenue at retail prices in less than two years.

And that's for capturing less than a sixth of the global market. A vaccine manufacturer that captures a third of that market would swim in wealth till the climate crisis took us all.

For comparison, consider Moderna's recent revenue profile. For the last few years, Moderna income has run between $60 and $200 million per year. Revenue for just the last quarter, however, jumped to $158 million. Moderna is clearly set for a windfall.

Needless to say, something like $100 billion or more in revenue would more than cover the cost of Covid vaccine development, so why the high retail prices? One can only guess.

How Effective Is 'Effective'?

About effectiveness, much is claimed. From the same Sky News article:

The UK has become the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for use.

The government says the jab [vaccine], which has been given the green light by independent health regulator MHRA, will be rolled out across the UK from early next week.

Studies have shown the jab is 95% effective and works in all age groups. [emphasis added]

Moderna claims similar effectiveness — 94% — for its own vaccine candidate. But what does effectiveness mean?

To a lay person, a phrase like '95% effective' means one of two things: either that she or he, upon exposure to the virus, is protected 95% of the time, or that 95% of the people who take the vaccine are protected 100% of the time.

And this is where the mutual eagerness of the two highly motivated groups — the public; the profiteers — intersect. The public wants to hear '95% effectiveness' and think it knows what those words means. The drug companies want the same thing as the public; it wants the public to think it knows what those words mean.

But in the world of drug advertising, the word 'effective' does not mean what you think it means. The other way to look at effectiveness is this: Based on the numbers released from phase 3 trials, the Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective, but 1% of the time. In the same way, the Moderna vaccine is 94% effective, but 2% of the time.

Not Really Meaning

Relative Effectiveness

To sort this out, let's look at real numbers, thanks to Twitter friend David Windt.

For the Moderna product, the phase 3 trial contained 30,000 individuals divided between those given the vaccine and those given a placebo. Let's assume that individuals in each group were allowed to roam freely 'in the wild' — that is, told to live their regular lives among the general population, including going out infrequently, staying masked, and practicing social distance — as opposed being proactively and aggressively exposed to the virus by the researchers, which would be highly immoral, to say the least.

In the Moderna vaccinated group, 11 people out of 15,000 got the virus (by Moderna's definition of what 'got the virus means') for an overall infection rate of 0.07%. (There's disagreement about whether the drug company's 'got the virus' measurements are well chosen; see the Forbes article 'Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed.' But we'll ignore that point for now.)

In the Moderna placebo group, 185 people of 15,000 got the virus, for an overall infection rate of 1.23%.

Do you see where this is headed? If you divide 0.07% by 1.23%, you get a 5.7% infection rate — or inversely, a 94% protection rate, which is what's claimed. But that's a percentage of a percentage, a ratio of a ratio, something called the 'relative rate' in the medical profession. What this really means is that, of the 1.23% of people who would have gotten the virus in the vaccinated group, 94% of them didn't.

But Moderna isn't testing 30,000 people who are infected with the virus, or even 15,000 people. Only 185 people 'got the virus' (by their definition) in the placebo group. That population was reduced to 11 people with vaccination. These are very small numbers. As stated above, the Moderna vaccine is 94% effective — but only 1.23% of the time.

(For another way to see that using a percentage of a percentage, or a ratio of a ratio, is confusing, consider an advertisement that claims a company's new product is 'twice as effective' as its old one. If the old product was effective only 2% of the time, and you knew this, would you buy the new one?)

Infection rates in those clinical trials seem low, by the way, which could be just an accident of statistics, or something off in their way of measuring who is counted as infected. From the start of the pandemic until now, the overall disease rate for Maricopa County, a high-infection zone, is 5034 per 100,000 people, or 5%. At the lower end, the overall disease rate for Multnomah County, a less-infected but still urban county, is 2363 per 100,000 people, or 2.4%.

Both rates are higher than the infection rates of the Moderna and Pfizer placebo groups. As stated, Moderna's placebo group experienced a 1.23% infection rate, and Pfizer's placebo group was infected just 0.75% of the time. Does this indicate a difference in how “infection” is determined, or just something else about these studies? Hard to tell at this point.

None of this is to imply dishonesty on the part of the drug companies. Measuring 'effectiveness' using the relative rate of infection is common in that world. It's just more meaningful when the overall infection rate of a pathogen is, say, 70% or higher, instead of 5% or less.

Absolute Effectiveness

For comparison, let's look at the absolute numbers from the Moderna test. In the unprotected population, 1.23% of the people who could have been exposed to the virus, got it. In the vaccinated population exposed to the same conditions, a little less than 0.07% got the virus. Subtracting the two, the absolute gain in protection was 1.16% — that is, taking the vaccine bought you a little over 1% in absolute protection.

The numbers for the Pfizer vaccine are similar. According to Windt, 'the infection rate was reduced slightly, from 0.75% to 0.04% - that's '95% efficacy' [but] these results do NOT mean that 95% of those vaccinated are protected.' In absolute terms, taking the Pfizer vaccine reduced the risk of getting the virus by just 0.71%.

Do you trust any of these drug manufacturers and their massively under-tested vaccines enough that you would take whatever risk is associated with their product to gain that amount of protection? I know good doctors who won't, and others who will.

Testing and Public Trust

I want to point to two articles about testing and public trust. First from MIT in November, consider this caution about public trust:

Covid-19 vaccines shouldn’t get emergency-use authorization

Public trust in vaccines is already in decline. The FDA should proceed with caution.

...The pace of covid-19 vaccine research has been astonishing: there are more than 200 vaccine candidates in some stage of development, including several that are already in phase 3 clinical trials, mere months after covid-19 became a global public health emergency. In order for the FDA to approve a vaccine, however, not only do these clinical trials need to be completed—a process that typically involves following tens of thousands of participants for at least six months—but the agency also needs to inspect production facilities, review detailed manufacturing plans and data about the product’s stability, and pore over reams of trial data. This review can easily take a year or more.

Excessive haste could have fatal consequences, since public confidence and wide vaccination are the only ways any vaccine, even the best ones, can work: 'Public health experts caution that vaccines don’t protect people; only vaccinations do. A vaccine that hasn’t gained enough public trust will therefore have a limited ability to control the pandemic even if it’s highly effective.' [emphasis mine]

This Forbes article from September, titled “Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed,” argues that the vaccine trials it examined measure efficacy by testing for the wrong things — the absence or presence of symptoms, especially mild ones:

One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance.

It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation. [emphasis added]

Is this true of the latest trials? Last September is forever in Covid years. I’ll look at this side of the issue in a follow-up piece, but my early research says that the Forbes point is still valid. If this turns out to be the flaw Forbes thinks it is, public trust could be even more greatly eroded as these vaccines fail to deliver what we’re led to expect of them.

To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate?

As I said before, this is an not an encouragement reject the vaccines. It's an encouragement to decide about them wisely by considering a number of factors — your need to feel 'safe,' your need to end this constant quarantine, and society's need to inoculate nearly everyone, versus your trust in the approval process, your personal level of caution, and the benefit of taking a relatively untested product to reduce your Covid risk by maybe 2% in absolute terms.

There are Covid hot-spots after all, areas of the country and the world where infections are soaring, and even low infection rates come at a heavy price. Covid has changed for the worse both the way we live and our economy. And people do die from it.

Maybe the first vaccines out of the gate, perhaps these three, will be everything a mother could want for her family and nation. But even if these products are are very very good, they have to be trusted to be effective.

If that trust is given blindly, and then betrayed, the consequences will be severe.

(This piece has been updated on December 9 with information on clinical trial design.)

• Aaron BrownGodTube Contributing Author
• 202125 Feb

Just the other day I was participating in a dance class and a song was played that I had never heard before. As the lyrics sounded from the speaker box, I quickly realized I knew the artists. The newly developed interest in the song though was quickly drowned by the tired trope they sang about – judgment.

Please don't judge me by the clothes I wear,
Please don't judge me by the songs I sing,
Please don't judge me by the way that I'm dancing.

During my time in college some years ago, I heard people talk like that. There seemed to be this fad where people kept telling others, “Don’t judge me.” People even said that to me at times. With enough observation, I learned that people didn’t mind hearing compliments (who doesn’t), but what they did not want to hear was disapproval, of any kind.

That’s where the “no judgment” plea came in. Offer praise, but no disapproval. The only one who could judge was God. So they said then and so they say even now.

The issue with this sentiment, especially for believers, is that God is in fact not the only one who judges.

“To fear the Lord is to hate evil. I hate arrogant pride, evil conduct, and perverse speech.” (Proverbs 8:13)

Hate is an extreme emotion, but nonetheless, the Bible itself provides examples of hating evil. Hate in itself is a form of disapproval. The aforementioned proverb comes from former King Solomon, a man known for his wisdom (1 Kings 3:10-14). If anyone knows the importance of doing right instead of wrong, I’d wager King Solomon knows a little something.

The apostle Paul even seemed to advocate for kicking the sexually immoral from church (1 Corinthians 5:1-5).

If Solomon and Paul have expressed disapproval for wrong actions, are we also allowed to express disapproval? The Bible’s clear answer is yes, and the evidence is overwhelming.

“Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27:17)

“And let us consider one another in order to provoke love and good works.” (Hebrews 10:24)

How do we as Christians, let alone as people, help one another without sometimes expressing disapproval? Do we naturally do everything perfectly? Are parents judging their children when they admonish their behavior? Is a friend judging when they urge someone not to make an unhealthy decision?

What I have noticed is that people call out others for judging but offer no alternative for receiving feedback. They seemingly just want to be affirmed.

Thus, I suppose if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all. That’s the idea, but as sinful people, everything we do isn’t nice. Everything we say isn’t nice.

When we encounter unpleasant words or actions, we should have something to say about that.

What Is Judging Really?

To dismantle the whole “don’t judge me” idea, we have to first understand the meaning of the word judge. That should be easy enough. One way to discern the meaning is to turn to the courtroom. The task of judges is to...judge. They hear a claim and the supporting evidence and come to a conclusion. In certain cases, they determine whether or not they believe someone is innocent.

They are determining if someone or something is good or bad. That’s what we do when we choose what to eat, who to grow close to, where to live.

According to the dictionary, judging means “to form an opinion or an estimate.” The definition is not exclusively coming to an unfavorable conclusion. Rather, coming to any conclusion is judging.

People must be confused when they say, “don’t judge me.” What they really mean is “please only approve of me.”

But let’s analyze the other idea behind “don’t judge me.” People sometimes add, “Only God can judge me.”

What does the Bible say about judging? Let’s find out.

“Do not judge, so that you won’t be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)

Some people cite this verse when they advocate for not judging others. They interpret this to mean not saying anything negative about another. After all, if we don’t judge others, we won’t be judged. Right? Sounds innocent enough, but we need to see this verse in a more complete context.

“Do not judge, so that you won’t be judged. For you will be judged by the same standard with which you judge others, and you will be measured by the same measure you use. Why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye but don’t notice the beam of wood in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the splinter out of your eye,’ and look, there’s a beam of wood in your own eye? Hypocrite! First, take the beam of wood out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5)

For starters, is calling someone a hypocrite judgmental?

The Bible acknowledges that people in fact do judge. We form conclusions about others based on what they do or don’t do, say or don’t say. A person’s actions naturally inform our understanding of their character. What Scripture makes clear too in this passage is that the standards we apply to others, God will also apply to us.

Forming opinions of others is not bad, but the way we need to be careful about our perspectives. We should not set higher standards for others than we do for ourselves.

If a parent seeks for their child to stop gossiping, but they themselves gossip, they are acting hypocritically. Or in the case of a friend trying to encourage another to leave an abusive relationship, while they themselves are in one. The ways we encourage others should be an area of strength for us, or at the very least, an area we recognize as problematic within ourselves.

However, we will always encourage someone better in areas where we already excel.

Though we have an idea of how God judges, is there any verse that gives us a clearer idea?

How Does God Judge?

“But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not look at his appearance or his stature because I have rejected him. Humans do not see what the Lord sees, for humans see what is visible, but the Lord sees the heart.’” (1 Samuel 16:7)

God’s insight into humankind is much more personal, intimate, and informed than anyone ordinary person can manage. This makes sense considering God formed each of us in our mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13).

What Does Not Mean

God knows us better than anyone can. When we die and we receive our fate, only He knows where our souls will go. He knows the fate of every believer and nonbeliever. Only God judges someone’s fate. No one else.

That’s the distinction to make between how God judges and how people judge. However, through God Himself, we learn how to judge between right and wrong behavior.

Through Adam’s relationship with Eve, we see this truth. Before God called out the duo for disobedience in the Garden of Eden, He created Eve to “help” him do right. (Genesis 3).

“Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper corresponding to him.’” (Genesis 2:18)

If Adam was not fit to be alone before sin even entered the world, who are we to deny others who are correcting our behavior?

We are to judge one another, but the way we go about doing that is important.

How we encourage one another is just as important as the message we want to share. A parent can’t correct their child by yelling everything. A friend can’t encourage their peer to change their behavior by insulting them.

Instead of seeing judging as someone putting others down, we can see judging as moments of healthy communication where one person encourages another.

Thankfully, through God and the example He sent us through Jesus, we can discern how we are supposed to properly encourage one another.

How Should We Judge?

Not Really Meaning In Hindi

Receiving feedback about our flaws does not have to be perceived as judging but could instead be reframed as encouragement. Of course, this depends on how the speaker delivers the message to the receiver. However, the receiver still has to be open to hearing honest feedback.

When someone shares their thoughts, they are expressing some level of care. When someone takes the time to mention our flaws to us in a helpful manner, we can conclude that they care for us. The same applies to us when we share our thoughts. What we have to ensure is that we deliver our ideas appropriately.

How do we do that?

1. Discuss Actions, Not Character

We know that our understanding of others is far more limited than God’s. We often see a person’s actions and quickly assess that person’s character, but when we do this we judge their character instead of their actions (1 Samuel 16:7).

People are not as eager to change if we say things like, “You are a mean person,” “You are evil,” “I hate being around you.”

Instead, when we can practice vulnerability and talk to people about how their actions make us feel, they are more inclined to listen. Then we can gently offer suggestions for improving communication, the relationship, etc.

Not Really Means Yes

2. Seek Understanding

When we discuss actions instead of character, we open ourselves up to better understanding the other person. Without having a personal relationship with someone, we can easily see bad behavior from someone and come to a quick assumption.

Much harder to do is understand why someone behaves the way they do. When we seek an understanding we can better comprehend someone's motivations. Not only that but we also humble ourselves to the fact that we all sin (Romans 3:23).

3. Share Love

In any conversation, and in every action, we can fulfill the second greatest commandment by loving others (Matthew 22:39).

Define Not Really

Loving someone does not mean every word we say is a compliment, affirmation, or word of approval. What love means is encouraging someone to be better in any and every way possible. When we love others, just as we love ourselves, we seek to build others up, not tear them down even in moments of offering critique.

Another Word For Not Really

When we master this ability to love, we can be like Jesus with the adulteress, not offering condemnation, but clear and definite encouragement to others to go and be better people (John 8:11).

Photo Credit: ©GettyImages/Deagreez

Aaron Brown is a freelance writer, dance teacher, and visual artist. He currently contributes articles to GodUpdates, GodTube,iBelieve, and Crosswalk. Aaron also supports clients through the freelance platform Upwork.