4 ms·

[EDIT: Removed an irrelevant paragraph.] There were suggestions earlier that 1st dose was "for sure" more effective, and judging by UK response some countries

by yyyk 6y ago

[EDIT: Removed an irrelevant paragraph.] There were suggestions earlier that 1st dose was "for sure" more effective, and judging by UK response some countries are desperate enough to try this without a trial. You didn't mean it, but it's possible some places will go for it. I'm just asking people to look before they leap, it's not a sure thing. >Indeed, the whole core assumption on that time series data is so bad-- assuming that people will behave the same from days 0-7 and from 7 on, when they've been cautioned that the vaccine is not immediately effective... Seriously, smh. Well, according to his github explanation[0] there was an attempt to account for that: "It is assumed that on the days following the vaccination, there is increased caution to avoid social encounters." [0] https://github.com/dviraran/covid_analyses https://github.com/dviraran/covid_analyses

mlyle 6y ago
Well, you're trying my patience by putting words in my mouth that I didn't say: I didn't suggest decisionmakers immediately give everyone one dose. Are you making a dishonest argument, or did you just fail to read what I originally said. Your assertions are hard to reconcile with e.g. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Et4moRCXAAAZ18o?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Et4moRCXAAAZ18o?format=jpg&name=... Note that most of the people positive at 21-27 days would have been exposed before the 2nd dose... Yes, it's crappy time series data, but...
- yyyk 6y ago
  I didn't mean to put anything in your mouth you did not say. If I accidentally offended you please accept my apology. Lets keep this to the science, as far as my limited ability allows me to engage, OK? As for your link, according to the original PDF[0] this is raw data before any statistical corrections, which makes it not very useful. The person you're quoting has been noted as a relative pessimist, assumes that 1st dose effect is very small due to behavioural changes[1], and that a lot of the effect is due to the lockdown. (IMHO, he's too pessimistic, but again I'm far from an expert). [0] https://kinstitute.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/covid_1002_post.pdf https://kinstitute.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/covid_1... [1] https://twitter.com/KalksteinNir/status/1358735186637299715 https://twitter.com/KalksteinNir/status/1358735186637299715
  - mlyle 6y ago
    It's time series data. Yes, it's not case controlled. I said this already. RCT > CCT > Time series. So we've got RCTs for each Pfizer and Moderna that show similar first dose efficacy. We've got prelim CCT data that seems to show Pfizer efficacy but a bit lower than we'd like, confounded by possible behavioral changes. And we have time series data that seems to show first dose efficacy. And then we have the very-confused-seeming over-tweaked analysis of time series data that you keep linking, too, comparing to base population rates without any effort at case control, which shows negative efficacy. Anecdote: the people that I know who received their first dose decidedly did not become less active, either in the near term (actuality: slightly more active) or the longer term (actuality: considerably more active).
    - yyyk 6y ago
      Assume that we do the RCTs etc. and discover the 'bit lower than we'd like efficiency' (33% vs the original 80%) the CCT you quoted argued, is the actual efficiency* , what then? IMHO, Judging by what happened in Israel at the time (a rise in cases), I for one wouldn't recommend a one dose regimen. So I don't consider what I'm saying supported by only one analysis, but by all of the Israeli CCTs so far. Judging by the consensus of Israeli HMOs, they probably feel the same. [EDIT: Basically, I don't consider a low efficiency all that different from '1st dose isn't efficient'. So we give people the 1st dose, they party, and we come up even.] * Yes, people probably became more active, but remember there was a lockdown too, and a different variant than in the original RCTs. There's justification for a lowered efficiency beyond bias in the RCT.
      - mlyle 6y ago
        > Assume that we do the RCTs etc. and discover the 'bit lower than we'd like efficiency' the CCT you quoted shows is the actual efficiency* , what then? There's not just one figure of merit. The most important one is the ratio between (efficacy during the second month) with the delayed dose vs. with the on-time dose. If that's 0.5 or more, it's a slam dunk: you delay. But post-dose 2 efficacy and immune titers and side effect profile matter, too. It's likely the long term efficacy is higher with delayed dose 2. This is what we see in most vaccines and 21 days is very, very early for a booster. > remember there was a lockdown too, Lockdown shouldn't affect anything in the CCT data. It's case controlled?? Presumably lockdown affects people in the two groups similarly, unless you're suggesting it reduces activity more in people who are vaccinated somehow..
mlyle 6y ago
Since you edited this in: >Well, according to his github explanation[0] there was an attempt to account for that: > "It is assumed that on the days following the vaccination, there is increased caution to avoid social encounters." Yes. He fudges beta by 0.25, when it has values >3. Uhh.. Edit: unless you actually propose that the vaccine is increasing risk of infection beyond changes in behavior, there's clearly something very big methodologically wrong here. And even that can't explain the drastically different betas assumed between the hospitalization series and the infection series. (I mean, they're on OPPOSITE SIDES OF 1 AND FAR AWAY FROM IT)

by yyyk 6y ago

mlyle 6y ago

Well, you're trying my patience by putting words in my mouth that I didn't say: I didn't suggest decisionmakers immediately give everyone one dose. Are you making a dishonest argument, or did you just fail to read what I originally said. Your assertions are hard to reconcile with e.g. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Et4moRCXAAAZ18o?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Et4moRCXAAAZ18o?format=jpg&name=... Note that most of the people positive at 21-27 days would have been exposed before the 2nd dose... Yes, it's crappy time series data, but...

yyyk 6y ago
I didn't mean to put anything in your mouth you did not say. If I accidentally offended you please accept my apology. Lets keep this to the science, as far as my limited ability allows me to engage, OK? As for your link, according to the original PDF[0] this is raw data before any statistical corrections, which makes it not very useful. The person you're quoting has been noted as a relative pessimist, assumes that 1st dose effect is very small due to behavioural changes[1], and that a lot of the effect is due to the lockdown. (IMHO, he's too pessimistic, but again I'm far from an expert). [0] https://kinstitute.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/covid_1002_post.pdf https://kinstitute.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/covid_1... [1] https://twitter.com/KalksteinNir/status/1358735186637299715 https://twitter.com/KalksteinNir/status/1358735186637299715
- mlyle 6y ago
  It's time series data. Yes, it's not case controlled. I said this already. RCT > CCT > Time series. So we've got RCTs for each Pfizer and Moderna that show similar first dose efficacy. We've got prelim CCT data that seems to show Pfizer efficacy but a bit lower than we'd like, confounded by possible behavioral changes. And we have time series data that seems to show first dose efficacy. And then we have the very-confused-seeming over-tweaked analysis of time series data that you keep linking, too, comparing to base population rates without any effort at case control, which shows negative efficacy. Anecdote: the people that I know who received their first dose decidedly did not become less active, either in the near term (actuality: slightly more active) or the longer term (actuality: considerably more active).
  - yyyk 6y ago
    Assume that we do the RCTs etc. and discover the 'bit lower than we'd like efficiency' (33% vs the original 80%) the CCT you quoted argued, is the actual efficiency* , what then? IMHO, Judging by what happened in Israel at the time (a rise in cases), I for one wouldn't recommend a one dose regimen. So I don't consider what I'm saying supported by only one analysis, but by all of the Israeli CCTs so far. Judging by the consensus of Israeli HMOs, they probably feel the same. [EDIT: Basically, I don't consider a low efficiency all that different from '1st dose isn't efficient'. So we give people the 1st dose, they party, and we come up even.] * Yes, people probably became more active, but remember there was a lockdown too, and a different variant than in the original RCTs. There's justification for a lowered efficiency beyond bias in the RCT.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      > Assume that we do the RCTs etc. and discover the 'bit lower than we'd like efficiency' the CCT you quoted shows is the actual efficiency* , what then? There's not just one figure of merit. The most important one is the ratio between (efficacy during the second month) with the delayed dose vs. with the on-time dose. If that's 0.5 or more, it's a slam dunk: you delay. But post-dose 2 efficacy and immune titers and side effect profile matter, too. It's likely the long term efficacy is higher with delayed dose 2. This is what we see in most vaccines and 21 days is very, very early for a booster. > remember there was a lockdown too, Lockdown shouldn't affect anything in the CCT data. It's case controlled?? Presumably lockdown affects people in the two groups similarly, unless you're suggesting it reduces activity more in people who are vaccinated somehow..

mlyle 6y ago

Since you edited this in: >Well, according to his github explanation[0] there was an attempt to account for that: > "It is assumed that on the days following the vaccination, there is increased caution to avoid social encounters." Yes. He fudges beta by 0.25, when it has values >3. Uhh.. Edit: unless you actually propose that the vaccine is increasing risk of infection beyond changes in behavior, there's clearly something very big methodologically wrong here. And even that can't explain the drastically different betas assumed between the hospitalization series and the infection series. (I mean, they're on OPPOSITE SIDES OF 1 AND FAR AWAY FROM IT)