6 ms·

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 m

by 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..
    - yyyk 6y ago
      >There's not just one figure of merit. The most important one is the ratio between (month 1 to month 2 efficacy) with the delayed dose vs. with the on-time dose. If that's 0.5 or more, it's a slam dunk: you delay. So you're suggesting people with 1st dose keeping increasing the protection despite no booster in the delayed dose scenario. Possible, but important to point out that's not supported by the original RCT which takes no position on the matter. >This is what we see in most vaccines and 21 days is very, very early for a booster. True, but MRNA vaccines are new. 21 to 28 days could be the right period there. >Presumably lockdown affects people in the two groups similarly, unless you're suggesting it reduces activity more in people who are vaccinated somehow.. No, but it dampens the 'people who get vaccine are partying' effect. I'm suggesting lockdown could prevent an effect you'd be seeing in the real world if we did this with no lockdown. [EDIT: I'll respond to your other post here since this thread is already too sprawling. >The only CCT preliminary data that I've seen suggests that one dose is protective. You have more CCTs? My argument is that a low enough protection isn't so different from no protection. Lets say we give a delayed shot, people party for a longer time, the end result balances itself or could even be negative. ]
      - mlyle 6y ago
        > So you're suggesting people with 1st dose keeping increasing the protection despite no booster in the delayed dose scenario. Possible, but important to point out that's not supported by the original RCT which takes no position on the matter. No? I'm suggesting we compare e.g. cases from day 21 to 42, when A) second dose is given on day 21, and B) second dose is given on day 42. (And people are blinded). If efficacy B is at least half of efficacy A, then it makes sense to follow plan B.

by yyyk 6y ago

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..
  - yyyk 6y ago
    >There's not just one figure of merit. The most important one is the ratio between (month 1 to month 2 efficacy) with the delayed dose vs. with the on-time dose. If that's 0.5 or more, it's a slam dunk: you delay. So you're suggesting people with 1st dose keeping increasing the protection despite no booster in the delayed dose scenario. Possible, but important to point out that's not supported by the original RCT which takes no position on the matter. >This is what we see in most vaccines and 21 days is very, very early for a booster. True, but MRNA vaccines are new. 21 to 28 days could be the right period there. >Presumably lockdown affects people in the two groups similarly, unless you're suggesting it reduces activity more in people who are vaccinated somehow.. No, but it dampens the 'people who get vaccine are partying' effect. I'm suggesting lockdown could prevent an effect you'd be seeing in the real world if we did this with no lockdown. [EDIT: I'll respond to your other post here since this thread is already too sprawling. >The only CCT preliminary data that I've seen suggests that one dose is protective. You have more CCTs? My argument is that a low enough protection isn't so different from no protection. Lets say we give a delayed shot, people party for a longer time, the end result balances itself or could even be negative. ]
    - mlyle 6y ago
      > So you're suggesting people with 1st dose keeping increasing the protection despite no booster in the delayed dose scenario. Possible, but important to point out that's not supported by the original RCT which takes no position on the matter. No? I'm suggesting we compare e.g. cases from day 21 to 42, when A) second dose is given on day 21, and B) second dose is given on day 42. (And people are blinded). If efficacy B is at least half of efficacy A, then it makes sense to follow plan B.