4 ms·

> giving it to only 18-55 year old This is simply untrue, the mixed-dose regimen was limited to those under 55, but 4% of the study population were over 70. >

by snet0 6y ago

> giving it to only 18-55 year old This is simply untrue, the mixed-dose regimen was limited to those under 55, but 4% of the study population were over 70. > the efficacy is not so great While the efficacy numbers indeed look lower than the mRNA vaccines, I'm lead to believe that at least part of this is due to methodology. As far as I am aware, neither the Moderna or the Pfizer mRNA vaccines tested for asymptomatic cases, and presented their efficacy against symptomatic cases only. > it turns out efficacy in old people is basically nothing I believe this claim is totally untrue, also.

yread 6y ago
Don't get me wrong I would still take if I got the chance (and I will according to the plan as I work in a hospital) but it was a sloppily done trial. > This is simply untrue, the mixed-dose regimen was limited to those under 55, but 4% of the study population were over 70. It was given only to 18-55 in the UK. 4% doesn't compare well to 20+% for all the other trials. Brilliant for a disease which kills people with median age of 82 years (in the UK). Why would you even design a protocol that looks only at young people?! They used a different protocol in Brazil and South Africa. Why did they use a different protocol in different places? Pfizer and other companies managed with one. Having different protocol is treated as different trials - so the trial in South Africa didn't have enough cases and wasn't even considered in the EMA authorization. EMA estimates 60% efficacy. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-authorisation-eu https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-va... > methodology Ok so the efficacy looks worse but is not directly comparable. That doesn't really detract from my point that the trial(s) was not well designed, no? It just wasn't given to enough old people. EDIT: Also, the efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection was only 27% (again with insanely wide confidence interval). So, they designed the trial to measure it, but it doesn't do really well at that. > I believe this claim is totally untrue, also. It could be true, could be untrue but it's not falsifiable from the data. The confidence interval for efficacy in 65+ is -140.5% (yes there is a minus) - 94.2%. We just don't know. https://twitter.com/olivernmoody/status/1354781400071860230 https://twitter.com/olivernmoody/status/1354781400071860230

by snet0 6y ago

yread 6y ago

Don't get me wrong I would still take if I got the chance (and I will according to the plan as I work in a hospital) but it was a sloppily done trial. > This is simply untrue, the mixed-dose regimen was limited to those under 55, but 4% of the study population were over 70. It was given only to 18-55 in the UK. 4% doesn't compare well to 20+% for all the other trials. Brilliant for a disease which kills people with median age of 82 years (in the UK). Why would you even design a protocol that looks only at young people?! They used a different protocol in Brazil and South Africa. Why did they use a different protocol in different places? Pfizer and other companies managed with one. Having different protocol is treated as different trials - so the trial in South Africa didn't have enough cases and wasn't even considered in the EMA authorization. EMA estimates 60% efficacy. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-authorisation-eu https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-va... > methodology Ok so the efficacy looks worse but is not directly comparable. That doesn't really detract from my point that the trial(s) was not well designed, no? It just wasn't given to enough old people. EDIT: Also, the efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection was only 27% (again with insanely wide confidence interval). So, they designed the trial to measure it, but it doesn't do really well at that. > I believe this claim is totally untrue, also. It could be true, could be untrue but it's not falsifiable from the data. The confidence interval for efficacy in 65+ is -140.5% (yes there is a minus) - 94.2%. We just don't know. https://twitter.com/olivernmoody/status/1354781400071860230 https://twitter.com/olivernmoody/status/1354781400071860230