QUESTION: Wouldnt any CV19 vaccine have to be 98% effective vs 50% effective like some Flu vaccines?

[Jirel]

27. Obviously. You've missed the point.

Since I guess I have to spell it out... AIDS drugs, when they eventually got onto the market, were somewhat helpful but not all that effective for every patient - certainly not by today's standards and better drugs. Patients developed resistance, as well. The drugs were basically as stopgap, to give patients more time until a better set of drugs, a cure, or a vaccine could be developed. When they were testing these drugs, there was no hand-wringing that they might not help everyone, or they might have side effects, or they might be inconvenient to administer. AZT got fast-tracked with little work on safety or effectiveness, in just 4 months. The community of patients with AIDS said "Yes, thank you, let's try these and do all we can with them while we keep looking." In the 1990s when HAART was developed and approved, and was much more effective, patients had to take many pills every day, so that some just gave up. Not awesome. But it saved lives, and it was what we had.

Same thing with partially effective vaccines for COVID-19. They'll better than nothing. Yay. If we have to have multiple shots per year, which is a pain just like taking HAART was, it's better than nothing. Yay.

Clear enough?