4 ms·

I'm not referring to the Pfizer research, I'm referring to the Maccabi paper. The data is explicitly for the first dose and not the second. The paper also menti

by yyyk 6y ago

I'm not referring to the Pfizer research, I'm referring to the Maccabi paper. The data is explicitly for the first dose and not the second. The paper also mentions the effect starts from day 18, not beforehand - maybe you should read it again. What Maccabi did publish on the second dose, it was in a much more encouraging note. Granted, not a peer reviewed paper, that would be difficult given lack of time. Claiming Yediot is parroting the government is delusional. I won't belabor about it, since most HN readers deserve better than Israeli politics or the eternal elections.

tsimionescu 6y ago
The main point that beagle3 makes is that the Pfizer study actually shows ~89% efficacy starting 12 days after the first dose, which improves to ~90% immediately after the 2nd dose (day 21) and ~95% 7 days later (day 28). The Maccabi study was designed with this comparison in mind: they look at efficacy in days 1-12 and 13-24 after the first dose. They are mainly interested in comparing the Pfizer results for days 13-21 (89% efficacy) with real-world data. They show that the real world data is actually showing only ~50% protection in days 13-21, compared to 89% in the Pfizer data for the same period. This is somewhat disheartening. HOWEVER, the Maccabi paper is not measuring the same thing as the Pfizer study. The Pfizer study only looked at symptomatic infections (Covid19 symptoms + positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2), while the Maccabi paper is also including asymptomatic infections. Neither study includes sufficient data to accurately compare with the other one - the Pfizer study did not do PCR tests on anyone who didn't show symptoms, so we don't know how many asymptomatic infections they had exra; and the Maccabi study didn't record symptom information, so we don't know what percentage of those infected were symptomatic. All of these numbers and facts are explicitly mentioned in the Maccabi study, it's not me reading into the data on my own.
- yyyk 6y ago
  You are correct, but this doesn't show a conspiracy like a certain other commenter hints at. We always knew that the the Pfizer vaccine has a lower chance of preventing transmissions, the original treatment regime was two doses, and we further know that the Pfizer vaccine wasn't originally tested vs B117 and the other mutations and it's quite possible it has lower efficiency vs those. Still, there's a good chance two doses offer even higher protection, and frankly if all adult population receives only the 'symptomatic' protection the plague will be over as far as Israel is concerned (barring yearly(?) boosters) - hearing there's any protection for asymptomatic infections is heartening.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    No, it doesn’t show a conspiracy. The political rather than medical decision making in Israel is out in the open, there’s no need for conspiracies. It took @RanBalicer 3 days to acknowledge the abysmal data, and it was not “gee, we might have made a mistake in the model”, it’s always “an unexpected twist in the mutation/behaviour/population”. It is beyond embarrassing. But I digress. Let’s just agree that the 95% RRR for “reported mild symptoms” is meaningless, and that the 50% number from Maccabi is actually good news, and we should use that number in models and predictions?
    - yyyk 6y ago
      I don't have an anti for Balicer, so I don't care if his models are right-or-wrong. It's natural to have mistakes, and changing position after 'only' 3 days is fine enough. I also agree that we heard some good news, but I do think that the 95% RRR is relevant - people who have a strong enough immune reaction to make the disease asymptomatic are people who have been protected. Once enough people have been protected, than hospital burden will go down and Israel could manage this thing.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
beagle3 6y ago
The 2nd dose data maccabi sent out is pure PR; It's basically "We finished vaccinating yesterday, and almost no one got sick yet!" which, while true, is the most fudgible statistic ever. I'm ignoring it and waiting for the 2nd paper from Maccabi and the 2nd release from the K(alkstein) Institute - whom I trust more than even the Maccabi medarxiv paper (and I do trust them, about a billion times more than government press releases and the incredibly compliant mass media).

by yyyk 6y ago

tsimionescu 6y ago

The main point that beagle3 makes is that the Pfizer study actually shows ~89% efficacy starting 12 days after the first dose, which improves to ~90% immediately after the 2nd dose (day 21) and ~95% 7 days later (day 28). The Maccabi study was designed with this comparison in mind: they look at efficacy in days 1-12 and 13-24 after the first dose. They are mainly interested in comparing the Pfizer results for days 13-21 (89% efficacy) with real-world data. They show that the real world data is actually showing only ~50% protection in days 13-21, compared to 89% in the Pfizer data for the same period. This is somewhat disheartening. HOWEVER, the Maccabi paper is not measuring the same thing as the Pfizer study. The Pfizer study only looked at symptomatic infections (Covid19 symptoms + positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2), while the Maccabi paper is also including asymptomatic infections. Neither study includes sufficient data to accurately compare with the other one - the Pfizer study did not do PCR tests on anyone who didn't show symptoms, so we don't know how many asymptomatic infections they had exra; and the Maccabi study didn't record symptom information, so we don't know what percentage of those infected were symptomatic. All of these numbers and facts are explicitly mentioned in the Maccabi study, it's not me reading into the data on my own.

yyyk 6y ago
You are correct, but this doesn't show a conspiracy like a certain other commenter hints at. We always knew that the the Pfizer vaccine has a lower chance of preventing transmissions, the original treatment regime was two doses, and we further know that the Pfizer vaccine wasn't originally tested vs B117 and the other mutations and it's quite possible it has lower efficiency vs those. Still, there's a good chance two doses offer even higher protection, and frankly if all adult population receives only the 'symptomatic' protection the plague will be over as far as Israel is concerned (barring yearly(?) boosters) - hearing there's any protection for asymptomatic infections is heartening.
- beagle3 6y ago
  No, it doesn’t show a conspiracy. The political rather than medical decision making in Israel is out in the open, there’s no need for conspiracies. It took @RanBalicer 3 days to acknowledge the abysmal data, and it was not “gee, we might have made a mistake in the model”, it’s always “an unexpected twist in the mutation/behaviour/population”. It is beyond embarrassing. But I digress. Let’s just agree that the 95% RRR for “reported mild symptoms” is meaningless, and that the 50% number from Maccabi is actually good news, and we should use that number in models and predictions?
  - yyyk 6y ago
    I don't have an anti for Balicer, so I don't care if his models are right-or-wrong. It's natural to have mistakes, and changing position after 'only' 3 days is fine enough. I also agree that we heard some good news, but I do think that the 95% RRR is relevant - people who have a strong enough immune reaction to make the disease asymptomatic are people who have been protected. Once enough people have been protected, than hospital burden will go down and Israel could manage this thing.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

beagle3 6y ago

The 2nd dose data maccabi sent out is pure PR; It's basically "We finished vaccinating yesterday, and almost no one got sick yet!" which, while true, is the most fudgible statistic ever. I'm ignoring it and waiting for the 2nd paper from Maccabi and the 2nd release from the K(alkstein) Institute - whom I trust more than even the Maccabi medarxiv paper (and I do trust them, about a billion times more than government press releases and the incredibly compliant mass media).