31 ms·

Pfizer 91% effective in updated data, protective against South African variant

419 points by reddotX 6y ago

throwaway894345 6y ago
I'm always confused about "effectiveness" numbers. Are these "effective at preventing severe disease" or "effective at preventing symptomatic disease" or against transmission period? The article seems to suggest it's the latter, but it seems somewhat ambiguous. Does this term have a specific definition in epidemiology that journalists and pharma marketers assume everyone understands what kind of "effectiveness" they're talking about?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ehsankia 6y ago
  It's "effective at preventing symptomatic disease". All the vaccines so far are 100% effective against "preventing severe disease" The last one (non-symptomatic), we don't really know, I don't think any studies have been done which regularly test everyone, at scale. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    There's some studies that have done regular testing, the vaccinations prevent infection. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102153 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102153 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2101927 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2101927 2 weeks after the second Pfizer dose, one of the medical centers had a positive test rate of 0.05% (not a typo, 0.05 percent).
    - ehsankia 6y ago
      Those are great, though they are pretty early results. I think in both cases, they finished giving the 2nd dose around February, so we've only had around 1 month of data. I'm a little confused by the percentage though. Looking at the 2nd study, and ignoring 1-7 days after the second dose, there's still 8+7 people who got infected a week after the 2nd dose, out of ~5000 tested. How do they get to the 0.05% number? Also, if I understand correctly, the table says there's around 16,000 eligible, but only 4000-5000 were tested? Am I missing something?
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        I misinterpreted them is what it is. The 0.05% is 7/14990, so it's the infections identified in the vaccinated group and isn't about regular testing, it's just that the result may include cases that were identified by testing rather than being symptomatic.
  - ortusdux 6y ago
    This is the key point that needs to be conveyed when the J&J 1-shot starts to be distributed. It has a 66-75% efficacy at preventing symptomatic disease, but 100% efficacy at preventing hospitalization. In situations where the 1-shot is ideal, patients being scared off by the lower efficacy rate could be an issue.
    - ehsankia 6y ago
      Not only that, J&J is also doing a trial for 2nd shot, as well as some places such as UK ended up doing Pfizer/Moderna with one shot only with delayed 2nd shot (3-4 months later). So we'll see how that works out, there may be the possibility of getting a 2nd shot of J&J later down the line to increase your immunity. I believe Pfizer has even started doing 3rd shot boosters for very early phase 1-2 people from last year.
  - arisAlexis 6y ago
    the 100% number probably doesn't include the P1,SA variants, no data on them. There is good probability that they become dominant so I'm waiting for the results on those.
- thepete2 6y ago
  This is a good question that was picked up by a blog I read. IIRC it refers to the ratio of infections in the control group vs. the vaccinated group. Hence an effectiveness of 90% means 90% of cases occurred in the non-vaccinated group. It does not mean 10% of people end up with no protection at all, as was my first thought.
  - m-ee 6y ago
    Minor nit. The ratio you refer to is called efficacy, not effectiveness. Effectiveness is the number you would get by observing people in the real world rather than the phase 3 trial. It's worth noting the difference because we're also starting to get data on effectiveness, like the CDC study that tracked healthcare workers and found the vaccine also prevented asymptomatic infection.
- clomond 6y ago
  Its a technical & medical term, rather than one that is meant to be useful for broader discussion. Efficacy in vaccines == people who were prevented from being confirmed COVID positive (symptoms sufficient to prompt a test, leading to a positive result) Therefore, a 91% effective metric for vaccines means that 91% of those who receive that vaccine are expected to NOT contract COVID 'at all'. Thing is though, many vaccines broadly do not prevent disease but shift the severity upon contraction. The metric that is actually useful for informing the public and policy is the answer to the question of 'does this prevent hospitalization, severe disease and death?'. Broadly speaking most approved vaccines globally have near 100% effectiveness in this.
  - _Gyan_ 6y ago
    The primary endpoint is symptomatic infection, not any infection per se. And it's a bit of a kludge, as all the Phase III protocols I've read define symptomatic infection as X no. of symptoms for Y+ no. of days i.e. there are people with fewer symptoms who aren't counted (or even tested to check for infection). The efficacy is the 1-relative risk of the primary endpoint.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > Therefore, a 91% effective metric for vaccines means that 91% of those who receive that vaccine are expected to NOT contract COVID 'at all'. Thing is though, many vaccines broadly do not prevent disease but shift the severity upon contraction. But I was just reading about another study of medical personnel who were taking periodic COVID tests so as to catch asymptomatic transmission, and I believe this study (or maybe merely the media about it) also used "effectiveness".
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- input_sh 6y ago
  They're all 100% effective at stopping hospitalization/death (at least in phase 3, not necessarily out in the field). So 9% chance for any infection, but all those that test positive have mild to no symptoms. They basically split people at a certain area into two groups, give one the real thing, another one placebo, track infections, compare the results. Comparing vaccines by effectiveness is meaningless because they're not all tested at the same place at the same time. So J&J has lower effectiveness, but it was calculated at the peak of the outbreak, when each participant interacted with Covid more frequently in their everyday lives. For the comparisons to become meaningful, it'd need to be re-done at the same place at the same urban area, with 10s of thousands of participants for each vaccine. You'd also need to have approximately similar age spread, plus similar population distribution within an urban area. Since it's all volunteer-based, this kind of study won't happen. In conclusion: take any that's available to you.
  - thepete2 6y ago
    I really don't know why this term is thrown around in the news so much without explanation. What I thought at first (and I think is the obvious interpretation) is that with an effectiveness of 90%, 10% of vaccinated people have no protection at all.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      The companies have every incentive to publish the good results and the media doesn't care about explaining things clearly. I'm not sure I can envision a reasonable way to embargo the numbers.
    - xeromal 6y ago
      Yeah, J&J especially got the shit end of the stick on that. 72% effective, in the US, at no symptoms, but 100% effective at preventing death but every talks like it's a worthless vaccine.
      - clarkevans 6y ago
        Moreover, it's only one shot. J&J is currently enrolling for a 2-shot trial (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04614948 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04614948), unfortunately, the control arm .. is no vaccination. I can imagine how this may hinder recruitment.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- amichal 6y ago
  My layman's understanding was that "91%" "effective at preventing disease" (from the TFA) goes something like this: - Take two identical[1] populations of people - Wait for some people (100 for easy math here) in the unvaccinated group to get the disease. Probably measured by a PCR test indicating presence of the virus and ignoring symptoms since they say "preventing disease" and not severe symptoms, hospitalization, death etc. - Count how many folks have the disease in the vaccinated group[2]. In the "91%" case we would expect 9 people to test positive, meaning 91 of 100 people we would expected to get the disease did not. I like to think of it as I am ~1/10th as likely to get the disease as I would be if i had not been vaccinated. Is this what they mean in this? [1] Doing your best to create identical groups by controlling for population differences such as gender, age, and other known risk factors, [2] We need also to control for time in the study etc. [Lots of editing for formatting etc]
  - matwood 6y ago
    > I like to think of it as I am ~1/10th as likely to get the disease as I would be if i had not been vaccinated. Same, and it gets less likely if you are in a group of vaccinated people since the chances of being exposed to someone who is sick goes down. Herd immunity at that point.
  - herrvogel- 6y ago
    This short video[1] explains it quite well imo. They also make the interesting point that efficacy rates are not comparable because the studies were done at different times/locations with different spread of the virus in the population. [1]https://youtu.be/K3odScka55A https://youtu.be/K3odScka55A
    - amichal 6y ago
      Reading the more technically detailed comments I think really reinforces throwaway894345's point. I understood what "91%" means (much better than non-techies in my circle) but assumed a lot incorrectly about the controls and the actual "end point" they are measuring. It seems lots of folks are saying the different studies use different sets of symptoms etc and not routine testing at intervals to identify those who have the disease. I suspect most of the public doesn't even know what 91% means. Combine that with being bad at evaluating risk in general. It mostly represents a 10x improvement in cases per capita per time, but I think telling folks that their risk went from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 (or whatever) probably doesn't mean a lot. Folks just want "safe" or "not-safe" :(
- breck 6y ago
  Be *very skeptical* of any future articles on the long run effectiveness of these vaccines. I was paid to work specifically on COVID, so was monitoring the vaccine data very closely. It was *very* promising, but there were a few things that puzzled me in where comparing results in placebo/control group vs vaccine groups, for both Pfizer and Moderna. So I would check near daily for new results. And then after Christmas break, when I went to check, found out both control groups had been effectively destroyed. (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/covid-2020-12-17/card/Pc6LVbfq91WyLWW1I71G https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/covid-2020-12-17/card/Pc6LV...) I'm not kidding, there are no longer any control/placebo groups for these vaccines. These were studies that were approved to run for 2 years! I had to sit through hours of boring mandatory training from NIH on importance of control groups. In these cases they just threw that away. It reaks to high heaven to me. (Note: I've seen nothing to indicate these vaccines are dangerous. Effective? Looks very likely, at least in the short run. Long run effective? HIGHLY skeptical. Total contribution to ending the pandemic from the vaccines? I'm highly skeptical that it will actually be high, when an honest accounting comes out). Would I personally take the vaccine had I not had COVID already? Yes. Though not if I were a kid or teenager (very little risk from COVID). If you are in medical research, please don't look to these people as role models. Please do things openly, on git, and don't sweep uncomfortable truths under the rug.
  - xxxtentachyon 6y ago
    Can you say more about what you think the implications of offering the control group vaccinations are? My prior assumption would be that protecting the control group would cause the study to underestimate the effectiveness of the vaccine since it now looks comparatively more similar to the control.
    - breck 6y ago
      We've lost any type of objective long term way to get to the truth on how dangerous COVID really was/is, and how long term effective the vaccines are. The numbers do not come close to supporting any ethical reason for doing this.
  - jsnell 6y ago
- jsnell 6y ago
  There is no standard definition. The clinical trial would have a set of predefined outcomes ("endpoints") that are used for the efficacy analysis. The endpoints will not necessarily be the same ones for each vaccine, even for the same disease. You'll need to read the actual trial protocol for a specific vaccine to find out just what they were measuring, and how they defined e.g. "serious" vs. "non-serious" cases.
- gregwebs 6y ago
  Most of the responses to your question that I have read are factually incorrect in some way. Efficacy/effectiveness is up to each study to define. Generally you should assume they are measuring symptoms of infections that go beyond the upper respiratory tract. This is because the vaccines provide little protection against an upper respiratory tract infection but instead are very effective at preventing it from progressing further into a more severe infection. This is referred to as non-sterilizing immunity: it is probably the most important concept for everyone to understand about the vaccines. I am seeing a lot of comments here claim that vaccines are 100% effective at preventing death or severe infection where severe is generally defined as hospitalization. Nothing is 100% effective, and particularly not vaccines for those whose immune system does not respond properly. Death in particular is generally not an endpoint that can be compared in a statistically significant way in these studies. [1] I will still be getting the first imperfect vaccine I am allowed to at the first chance I get. When I needed to get an appointment for my Mom I started writing a user script to help with that. [2] [1] https://dalewharrison.substack.com/p/vaccine-boosterism https://dalewharrison.substack.com/p/vaccine-boosterism [2] https://gist.github.com/gregwebs/265e0ef6b1a3051377cfc4d66acecf81 https://gist.github.com/gregwebs/265e0ef6b1a3051377cfc4d66ac...
  - jjcon 6y ago
    > the vaccines provide little protection against an upper respiratory tract infection They prevent symptomatic covid infection which includes respiratory symptoms.
- fastball 6y ago
  I don't think "against transmission period" is really possible, no? The whole point of a vaccine is to prime your immune system, it does not provide a magical shield to your body. If you get exposed to COVID-19 after being vaxxed, you will still have COVID-19 in your system for some amount of time. It will just (hopefully) get killed very quickly when the memory B/T cells (that were created by your body when you had an immune response to the vaccine) ramp up production.
- quantgenius 6y ago
  It’s a percentage reduction in risk. If a random unvaccinated person has a 10% chance of infection and a vaccinated person has a 1% chance of infection, the vaccine is 90% effective.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
I wish it was easier to tell which vaccine was the better one to take. I know the "correct" answer is "whichever one is available to you", but let's pretend we're free-agent adults here and put the infantile answers aside for a moment. There seems to be a very strong urge not to compare any of them as better, which puts users in a position of information asymmetry where they might not make the best health choices for themselves. Is there any realistic way to compare which of the vaccine selections available in the USA is better given certain conditions? For example, if someone has a history of reacting to vaccines (GBS), is the attenuated adenovirus from J&J a better choice compared to the mRNA alternatives?
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  I think that's what the challenge study was supposed to do, but it didn't go ahead.
- _delirium 6y ago
  I'm not sure there's enough data at the moment to give an answer. Each of the approved vaccines had a double-blind placebo-controlled study run, but on different timelines and in different locations, so it's hard to conclude much from small differences between the reported numbers.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    Right, unless you do a full trial with all vaccines side by side with similar sample/timeline, it's not really possible to tell. Also, the error bar on these effectiveness numbers are realistically probably +/- 5% or more, so it's not like a 76% is definitely worse than the 80%. The dosage also matters. J&J for example decided to study one dose first, but are now doing a phase trial to see how good the immunity is for a 2-dose program. So potentially if you get a second dose (maybe down the line), you will also get a stronger immunity closer to the other 2 dose vaccines.
    - hannob 6y ago
      > Also, the error bar on these effectiveness numbers are realistically probably +/- 5% or more, so it's not like a 76% is definitely worse than the 80%. But we're talking 91% vs. 76%.
alrex021 6y ago
Hilarious that they still label it as a country variant, as if the variant carries a genetic “country” code that determines the origin. Plain stupidity. [Edit] To elaborate since there is so much negativity to my original comment. There is no absolute proof that the variant originated in South Africa, so calling it by a country’s name is an insult to human intelligence. We refer to the virus as the Coronavirus and not the Chinese virus. Why should the variant be any different? (This variant being actually called 501.V2)
- eplanit 6y ago
  And note that it's not racist to name a variant by where it is found, but it is racist and xenophobic to name the original form similarly.
  - jdavis703 6y ago
    This needs a citation or more detailed explanation for why it’s not problematic.
    - da_big_ghey 6y ago
      If I am refer to "British variant", no person is thinking I am racist against Englishmen. If I am refer to "Chinese virus", every person is thinking I am racist against Chinamen. But it is not "Asian coronavirus", that would be having more credible potential for racism. Persons who are using term in racist way are symptom, not problem: even while we are seeing use of alternate terms in all places, there still has been in past year increasing of hate crime against Asian. Neither terming has problem, British nor Chinese. It is a simple easy. Common man is not having any desire for to remember scientific names for any thing. And in last point, some persons are say that it create stigma against China: this is feature, not bug. China is deserving much fault for her failings in this manner.
      - Dirlewanger 6y ago
        Must get tiring to perform all these mental gymnastics
99_00 6y ago
If you told me that in 2021 there would be a global genetic engineering campaign I would have said you were crazy. But here we are. What an amazing time.
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  "Global genetic engineering campaign" suggests that the genes of humans are being edited, but it's just the genes of the vaccine.
  - 99_00 6y ago
    The vaccine deliveries genetic material into the cells, and the cells create protein using this genetic material. How isn't this genetic engineering?
    - mahogany 6y ago
      Unless I'm misunderstanding, the host's DNA is not changed during this process. When I think of genetic engineering, I think of "changing the host's genome". What does genetic engineering mean to you?
      - 99_00 6y ago
        the deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material.
        adrianmonk 6y ago
        By this definition, the mRNA vaccines aren't genetic engineering. They don't manipulate the organism's genetic material. They borrow the machinery that the organism uses (downstream) when doing stuff with its genetic material. When I borrow your kitchen to cook my own recipe, I don't alter or even look at your cookbooks.
        6y ago
deepakhj 6y ago
It's a comparison between two control groups and the amount that were infected. X - vaccine - 25 people get it Y - no vaccine - 250 people get it That would mean it's 1 - 25/250 * 100 = 90% effective.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
beeforpork 6y ago
Funny how US media write 'Pfizer' and EU media write 'Biontech'. Patriotism, probably. Or for Reuters, maybe Brexit!? What's it usually called in Asian, South American, or African media? 'Pfizer/Biontech' or 'Biontech/Pfizer' is just too long!
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  We could have called them the Boris, Merkel, and Trump vaccines ...
- woutr_be 6y ago
  The Hong Kong government here usually uses its brand name “Comirnaty”. The news uses every variation “Pfizer-BioNTech”, “BioNTech”, “Pfizer”, or often just “the German made jab”.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    So can you walk in and say "give it to me German style" ?
    - woutr_be 6y ago
      No, you have to book your appointment online.
- 74d-fe6-2c6 6y ago
  Referring to "that" vaccine with Pfizer instead of Biontech is like saying that "Yellow Submarine" is from EMI instead of the Beatles because EMI produced the LPs.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    That’s why both companies are equally sharing both the costs and the profits?
    - 6y ago
cyberlurker 6y ago
I’m seeing a lot of similar concerns in the comments so I just want to post this video from Vox. They did a great job explaining this issue. Effectiveness doesn’t really mean much between approved vaccines in the US. Please watch this video: https://youtu.be/K3odScka55A https://youtu.be/K3odScka55A From what we know so far, any of the approved vaccines are excellent and no one knows for sure if one is better than the other. The only logical thing to do is get what is offered to you as soon as possible. That being said, this is excellent news that Pfizer is protective against the SA Variant. Not trying to minimize that news, just point out that it still is better to just get whatever approved vaccine you can.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I'm not sure I really buy that video - don't control groups account for differences in the general population at the time it was done? This Pfizer data, plus the results in Israel suggest that the mRNA vaccines really are just objectively better. They all prevent death and hospitalizations though so get the one you can get, but it seems likely the mRNA shots are better. The main thing I'm wondering is if the people that got covid post J&J had really mild disease (like a tiny cold or something) or "mild" disease like absolutely miserable but just didn't have to go to ICU. Is that information known? Basically the video confuses some of what the control group actually does and then says "well they all prevent death anyway" - no shit. The question is if one is better than the other and the answer seems like yes. The main counter would be the presence of variants, but the Israeli population faced variants and the mRNA efficacy rate held. This new Pfizer data suggests mRNA is just better.
  - timr 6y ago
    > The main thing I'm wondering is if the people that got covid post J&J had really mild disease (like a tiny cold or something) or "mild" disease like absolutely miserable but just didn't have to go to ICU. Is that information known? Of course. It's right there in the FDA report, starting on page 51: https://www.fda.gov/media/146219/download https://www.fda.gov/media/146219/download 7.1.1.5.3 Case Definition for Mild COVID-19 • A SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR or molecular test result from any available respiratory tract sample (eg, nasal swab sample, sputum sample, throat swab sample, saliva sample) or other sample; AND at any time during the course of observation: • One of the following symptoms: fever (≥38.0°C or ≥100.4°F), sore throat, malaise (loss of appetite, generally unwell, fatigue, physical weakness), headache, muscle pain (myalgia), gastrointestinal symptoms, cough, chest congestion, runny nose, wheezing, skin rash, eye irritation or discharge, chills, new or changing olfactory or taste disorders, red or bruised looking feet or toes, or shaking chills or rigors. You will find equivalently precise definitions of moderate and severe disease, as well. And if you care to look, you can find the same thing for all of the other FDA-approved vaccines. They're similar, but not identical. In general, "mild disease" is what most reasonable people would consider to be mild disease, but there are minor differences in terms of which specific symptoms/thresholds are used. For this vaccine specifically, you can see that having two or more of the above symptoms will bump you into the "moderate disease" category. So they're pretty strict. > The question is if one is better than the other and the answer seems like yes. Given that you clearly haven't read the data, I don't know how you can possibly make such a speculation. I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but this entire affair has been defined by people who are way too willing to speculate after reading a few news articles.
josmala 6y ago
It's good day to announce this. People are taking all announcements today very seriously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v53EUMNSdQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v53EUMNSdQs
aww_dang 6y ago
As a layman who is generally skeptical of media promotions, 91% sounds wonderful. According to a recent study 100% of young teenagers found it effective. On face value the marketing sounds good. However, I wouldn't be interested personally. If after long term use these vaccines prove to be everything they are promised to be _and_ coronvirus remains an issue, I would gladly take it. As it is I am relatively healthy and not at risk. Reasonable people can disagree on the trustworthiness of media, government and technocrats. Ultimately, trust is earned. It is up to the individual to decide for himself. Attempts to scare people into vaccination or mandate use don't help the sale. Trust has been lost. Until this has been addressed, the optics surrounding the promotion of these vaccines can appear as hard sell, urgency, "act now while supplies last" scare techniques. I know many here are convinced. Hopefully this gives some insight into the skeptical view. Tinfoil or microchip implants don't play a role.
- zzzeek 6y ago
  > However, I wouldn't be interested personally. If after long term use these vaccines prove to be everything they are promised to be _and_ coronvirus remains an issue, I would gladly take it. As it is I am relatively healthy and not at risk. if you get the coronavirus you put other people at risk. Risk of death, in fact. shrugging off covid as not your problem is actually unethical.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    >...you put other people at risk. Risk of death! Without knowing anything about my situation, you jump to the furthest extreme. Please understand how this speaks exactly to my point.
    - ceh123 6y ago
      I'd love to hear how this analysis does not apply to your situation.
    - ArgyleSound 6y ago
      Unless you withdraw from society, it will unfortunately remain an issue
Black101 6y ago
I just got my first dose but they have no appointment available for the second dose so I wonder how effective it is with only one dose.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  Nothing that has been proven conclusively, but evidence suggests that in the near term you get over 90% effectiveness >12 days after the first dose. What isn't known is how long that phase lasts before fading. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about delaying a bit, as long as it wasn't more than a month or so.
  - Black101 6y ago
    My state tells me that the best time-frame to get the 2nd dose is 21-42 days after 1st dose. But luckily some sloths because available (maybe they weren't scheduling that far out yet).
- yellowapple 6y ago
  It's weird that it's even possible for someplace to be able to schedule the first dose and not the second. I noticed that with my local Smith's when I was vaccine hunting, too - I could pick a date for the first dose no problem, but nothing available for the second. What gives? You'd think it'd be the other way around if anything.
  - asdff 6y ago
    My second dose was automatically scheduled after receiving my first.
chmod600 6y ago
Does anyone expect covid to be a significant cause of death in the US past, say, May 15? I guess if we get another wave very soon, maybe it could persist. But it just seems like this is on its way out between organic immunity and vaccine immunity (especially because the latter was focused on the vulnerable). I'm not an expert, so don't take this as advice to go coughing on everyone. But we all have to make some decisions based on imperfect information and it seems like covid is nearly knocked out. There is some concern over another wave, but it might just be minor cases from unvaccinated young people. That hopefully won't lead to a lot more deaths.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  We are already seeing the beginning of a new wave in Michigan. > But she said the most significant increase in hospitalizations in the state is in people in their 50s, a group still at risk of becoming severely ill or dying from Covid-19. Younger people have driven the rapid increase in cases recently, she said, including high school students who participate in sports and have contracted the virus through those activities. > “I do think this could be the beginning of a third surge,” Dr. Khaldun said, after an initial rush of cases in Michigan last March and April, followed by a surge in October and November. “I am concerned. But I also think there are things that we can do today that will start to turn that curve down.” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/us/michigan-covid-outbreak.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/us/michigan-covid-outbrea...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - seizethecheese 6y ago
    Sure, a new wave of cases, but will it translate to deaths? My understanding is that most deaths come from 20% of population and we have vaccinated over 30%.
    - hammock 6y ago
      >most deaths come from 20% of population and we have vaccinated over 30%. In the US, most (59%) deaths come from people aged 75+ according to CDC. People aged 75+ make up roughly 12% of the population.
solarkraft 6y ago
The vaccine was developed by BioNTech. Its name is Comirnaty. It's not the "Pfizer vaccine".
- paconbork 6y ago
  https://xkcd.com/2275/ https://xkcd.com/2275/
- jakub_jo 6y ago
  US HN downvotes you.
newdude116 6y ago
Expect to get vaccinated several times a year. No kidding. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccines-idUSKCN2AV0H6 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-vac... "The European Union aims to increase the region’s COVID-19 vaccine production capacity to 2-3 billion doses per year by the end of 2021" Hint: The EU has about 400 Million people
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jauntbox 6y ago
  Isn't that because a lot of their vaccines get shipped all over the world? We need doses for ~7B people in total. I don't see anything there that says they're planning on administering multiple vaccination rounds per person.
  - newdude116 6y ago
    https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/eu-hopes-to-produce-up-to-3-bn-vaccine-doses-a-year-by-end-of-2021/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/eu-hopes-t... 3 bn PER year. Trust me. You may have to get vaccinated every year. Don't get me wrong, the strategy makes sense. Still not very encouraging.
- corty 6y ago
  Well, two shots a year, probably, maybe less. The real reason the EU needs this kind of capacity is that the current EU vaccination campaign is going very poorly. Most of the population will only get vaccinated late in summer and autumn, so the yearly capacity needs to be appropriate to at least get it done this year and before the next flu season. Oh, and the EU produces vaccines for a lot of others like UK, Israel and the US, as well as most third-world-countries. Imports into the EU are neglegible.
- kyboren 6y ago
  Hint: The world has more than 400 million people.
jakub_jo 6y ago
Reuters fixed the title and added BioNTech. Someone at HN should update the submission's title.
jgalt212 6y ago
There are many businesses that have adapted to and prefer pandemic life. They, perhaps even more so than the hysterics, are our major blockers to returning to normalcy.
icod 6y ago
Sorry but I don't believe it. In the very beginning of the South African variant there was a report that it wouldn't protect against it and other variants. They're the most expensive vaccine and they want to keep selling their product. I just lost faith in anything. When politicians make a profit from a prolonged emergency situation they have no reason to shorten the pandemic period. I'm talking about German politicians getting a commission on masks, and them being the ones who decide which kinds of masks are required. It's all so corrupt. I'm waiting for the Russian and/or Chinese vaccine, maybe travel to Serbia to get my Sputnik V shots, since the EU is playing it political. About a month ago they were even suggesting that "Can we trust the Russian vaccine or is it a Trojan Horse" I mean, suggesting that the Russians would knowingly kill the population of the EU. How through and through Nazified is Germany? Why would I pick the Sputnik V one over all others? Because they have prior knowledge and are doing 2 vectors (I'm not an expert but I read something about them doing ... well 2 vectors so the virus can't develop a resistence against the vaccine). I trust the Russian government more than my own, who has time and against lied and deceived me, even denounced what we were demonstrating against the new copyright laws and upload filters. The EU is corrupt through and through and they walk over dead bodies. Especially this new EU council lead by Ursula von der Leyen. Who even elected her? No one that's who. She has a past where she was involved in a corruption scandal and the phone with evidence on it, a state owned phone, was magically erased just when the evidence was to be secured. So yeah I don't trust anything that's developed in the EU and much less GB who voted pro those harmful "copyright" laws so they could have an advantage when they brexitted. Astazenica kills people. A Vaccine that kills people. WTF. And politicians are debating that it should now be used on the elderly, because hey fuck the elderly right, they're old and almost dead anyway... I can't eat how much I could puke.
- javagram 6y ago
  > Sorry but I don't believe it. > In the very beginning of the South African variant there was a report that it wouldn't protect against it and other variants. They're the most expensive vaccine and they want to keep selling their product. > I just lost faith in anything. When politicians make a profit from a prolonged emergency situation they have no reason to shorten the pandemic period [. . .] These two arguments you’re making contradict each other - the vaccine protection from the variant without an update shortens the pandemic period. An announcement that everyone needs to shelter in place while a new vaccine is developed is actually what would prolong it. Also, you seem to be placing more trust in an early “news report” than a scientific study, which makes no sense.
egberts 6y ago
Effective? You meant efficacy?

419 points by reddotX 6y ago

I'm always confused about "effectiveness" numbers. Are these "effective at preventing severe disease" or "effective at preventing symptomatic disease" or against transmission period? The article seems to suggest it's the latter, but it seems somewhat ambiguous. Does this term have a specific definition in epidemiology that journalists and pharma marketers assume everyone understands what kind of "effectiveness" they're talking about?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ehsankia 6y ago
It's "effective at preventing symptomatic disease". All the vaccines so far are 100% effective against "preventing severe disease" The last one (non-symptomatic), we don't really know, I don't think any studies have been done which regularly test everyone, at scale. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  There's some studies that have done regular testing, the vaccinations prevent infection. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102153 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102153 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2101927 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2101927 2 weeks after the second Pfizer dose, one of the medical centers had a positive test rate of 0.05% (not a typo, 0.05 percent).
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    Those are great, though they are pretty early results. I think in both cases, they finished giving the 2nd dose around February, so we've only had around 1 month of data. I'm a little confused by the percentage though. Looking at the 2nd study, and ignoring 1-7 days after the second dose, there's still 8+7 people who got infected a week after the 2nd dose, out of ~5000 tested. How do they get to the 0.05% number? Also, if I understand correctly, the table says there's around 16,000 eligible, but only 4000-5000 were tested? Am I missing something?
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      I misinterpreted them is what it is. The 0.05% is 7/14990, so it's the infections identified in the vaccinated group and isn't about regular testing, it's just that the result may include cases that were identified by testing rather than being symptomatic.
- ortusdux 6y ago
  This is the key point that needs to be conveyed when the J&J 1-shot starts to be distributed. It has a 66-75% efficacy at preventing symptomatic disease, but 100% efficacy at preventing hospitalization. In situations where the 1-shot is ideal, patients being scared off by the lower efficacy rate could be an issue.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    Not only that, J&J is also doing a trial for 2nd shot, as well as some places such as UK ended up doing Pfizer/Moderna with one shot only with delayed 2nd shot (3-4 months later). So we'll see how that works out, there may be the possibility of getting a 2nd shot of J&J later down the line to increase your immunity. I believe Pfizer has even started doing 3rd shot boosters for very early phase 1-2 people from last year.
- arisAlexis 6y ago
  the 100% number probably doesn't include the P1,SA variants, no data on them. There is good probability that they become dominant so I'm waiting for the results on those.
thepete2 6y ago
This is a good question that was picked up by a blog I read. IIRC it refers to the ratio of infections in the control group vs. the vaccinated group. Hence an effectiveness of 90% means 90% of cases occurred in the non-vaccinated group. It does not mean 10% of people end up with no protection at all, as was my first thought.
- m-ee 6y ago
  Minor nit. The ratio you refer to is called efficacy, not effectiveness. Effectiveness is the number you would get by observing people in the real world rather than the phase 3 trial. It's worth noting the difference because we're also starting to get data on effectiveness, like the CDC study that tracked healthcare workers and found the vaccine also prevented asymptomatic infection.
clomond 6y ago
Its a technical & medical term, rather than one that is meant to be useful for broader discussion. Efficacy in vaccines == people who were prevented from being confirmed COVID positive (symptoms sufficient to prompt a test, leading to a positive result) Therefore, a 91% effective metric for vaccines means that 91% of those who receive that vaccine are expected to NOT contract COVID 'at all'. Thing is though, many vaccines broadly do not prevent disease but shift the severity upon contraction. The metric that is actually useful for informing the public and policy is the answer to the question of 'does this prevent hospitalization, severe disease and death?'. Broadly speaking most approved vaccines globally have near 100% effectiveness in this.
- _Gyan_ 6y ago
  The primary endpoint is symptomatic infection, not any infection per se. And it's a bit of a kludge, as all the Phase III protocols I've read define symptomatic infection as X no. of symptoms for Y+ no. of days i.e. there are people with fewer symptoms who aren't counted (or even tested to check for infection). The efficacy is the 1-relative risk of the primary endpoint.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > Therefore, a 91% effective metric for vaccines means that 91% of those who receive that vaccine are expected to NOT contract COVID 'at all'. Thing is though, many vaccines broadly do not prevent disease but shift the severity upon contraction. But I was just reading about another study of medical personnel who were taking periodic COVID tests so as to catch asymptomatic transmission, and I believe this study (or maybe merely the media about it) also used "effectiveness".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
input_sh 6y ago
They're all 100% effective at stopping hospitalization/death (at least in phase 3, not necessarily out in the field). So 9% chance for any infection, but all those that test positive have mild to no symptoms. They basically split people at a certain area into two groups, give one the real thing, another one placebo, track infections, compare the results. Comparing vaccines by effectiveness is meaningless because they're not all tested at the same place at the same time. So J&J has lower effectiveness, but it was calculated at the peak of the outbreak, when each participant interacted with Covid more frequently in their everyday lives. For the comparisons to become meaningful, it'd need to be re-done at the same place at the same urban area, with 10s of thousands of participants for each vaccine. You'd also need to have approximately similar age spread, plus similar population distribution within an urban area. Since it's all volunteer-based, this kind of study won't happen. In conclusion: take any that's available to you.
- thepete2 6y ago
  I really don't know why this term is thrown around in the news so much without explanation. What I thought at first (and I think is the obvious interpretation) is that with an effectiveness of 90%, 10% of vaccinated people have no protection at all.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    The companies have every incentive to publish the good results and the media doesn't care about explaining things clearly. I'm not sure I can envision a reasonable way to embargo the numbers.
  - xeromal 6y ago
    Yeah, J&J especially got the shit end of the stick on that. 72% effective, in the US, at no symptoms, but 100% effective at preventing death but every talks like it's a worthless vaccine.
    - clarkevans 6y ago
      Moreover, it's only one shot. J&J is currently enrolling for a 2-shot trial (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04614948 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04614948), unfortunately, the control arm .. is no vaccination. I can imagine how this may hinder recruitment.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
amichal 6y ago
My layman's understanding was that "91%" "effective at preventing disease" (from the TFA) goes something like this: - Take two identical[1] populations of people - Wait for some people (100 for easy math here) in the unvaccinated group to get the disease. Probably measured by a PCR test indicating presence of the virus and ignoring symptoms since they say "preventing disease" and not severe symptoms, hospitalization, death etc. - Count how many folks have the disease in the vaccinated group[2]. In the "91%" case we would expect 9 people to test positive, meaning 91 of 100 people we would expected to get the disease did not. I like to think of it as I am ~1/10th as likely to get the disease as I would be if i had not been vaccinated. Is this what they mean in this? [1] Doing your best to create identical groups by controlling for population differences such as gender, age, and other known risk factors, [2] We need also to control for time in the study etc. [Lots of editing for formatting etc]
- matwood 6y ago
  > I like to think of it as I am ~1/10th as likely to get the disease as I would be if i had not been vaccinated. Same, and it gets less likely if you are in a group of vaccinated people since the chances of being exposed to someone who is sick goes down. Herd immunity at that point.
- herrvogel- 6y ago
  This short video[1] explains it quite well imo. They also make the interesting point that efficacy rates are not comparable because the studies were done at different times/locations with different spread of the virus in the population. [1]https://youtu.be/K3odScka55A https://youtu.be/K3odScka55A
  - amichal 6y ago
    Reading the more technically detailed comments I think really reinforces throwaway894345's point. I understood what "91%" means (much better than non-techies in my circle) but assumed a lot incorrectly about the controls and the actual "end point" they are measuring. It seems lots of folks are saying the different studies use different sets of symptoms etc and not routine testing at intervals to identify those who have the disease. I suspect most of the public doesn't even know what 91% means. Combine that with being bad at evaluating risk in general. It mostly represents a 10x improvement in cases per capita per time, but I think telling folks that their risk went from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 (or whatever) probably doesn't mean a lot. Folks just want "safe" or "not-safe" :(
breck 6y ago
Be *very skeptical* of any future articles on the long run effectiveness of these vaccines. I was paid to work specifically on COVID, so was monitoring the vaccine data very closely. It was *very* promising, but there were a few things that puzzled me in where comparing results in placebo/control group vs vaccine groups, for both Pfizer and Moderna. So I would check near daily for new results. And then after Christmas break, when I went to check, found out both control groups had been effectively destroyed. (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/covid-2020-12-17/card/Pc6LVbfq91WyLWW1I71G https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/covid-2020-12-17/card/Pc6LV...) I'm not kidding, there are no longer any control/placebo groups for these vaccines. These were studies that were approved to run for 2 years! I had to sit through hours of boring mandatory training from NIH on importance of control groups. In these cases they just threw that away. It reaks to high heaven to me. (Note: I've seen nothing to indicate these vaccines are dangerous. Effective? Looks very likely, at least in the short run. Long run effective? HIGHLY skeptical. Total contribution to ending the pandemic from the vaccines? I'm highly skeptical that it will actually be high, when an honest accounting comes out). Would I personally take the vaccine had I not had COVID already? Yes. Though not if I were a kid or teenager (very little risk from COVID). If you are in medical research, please don't look to these people as role models. Please do things openly, on git, and don't sweep uncomfortable truths under the rug.
- xxxtentachyon 6y ago
  Can you say more about what you think the implications of offering the control group vaccinations are? My prior assumption would be that protecting the control group would cause the study to underestimate the effectiveness of the vaccine since it now looks comparatively more similar to the control.
  - breck 6y ago
    We've lost any type of objective long term way to get to the truth on how dangerous COVID really was/is, and how long term effective the vaccines are. The numbers do not come close to supporting any ethical reason for doing this.
- jsnell 6y ago
jsnell 6y ago
There is no standard definition. The clinical trial would have a set of predefined outcomes ("endpoints") that are used for the efficacy analysis. The endpoints will not necessarily be the same ones for each vaccine, even for the same disease. You'll need to read the actual trial protocol for a specific vaccine to find out just what they were measuring, and how they defined e.g. "serious" vs. "non-serious" cases.
gregwebs 6y ago
Most of the responses to your question that I have read are factually incorrect in some way. Efficacy/effectiveness is up to each study to define. Generally you should assume they are measuring symptoms of infections that go beyond the upper respiratory tract. This is because the vaccines provide little protection against an upper respiratory tract infection but instead are very effective at preventing it from progressing further into a more severe infection. This is referred to as non-sterilizing immunity: it is probably the most important concept for everyone to understand about the vaccines. I am seeing a lot of comments here claim that vaccines are 100% effective at preventing death or severe infection where severe is generally defined as hospitalization. Nothing is 100% effective, and particularly not vaccines for those whose immune system does not respond properly. Death in particular is generally not an endpoint that can be compared in a statistically significant way in these studies. [1] I will still be getting the first imperfect vaccine I am allowed to at the first chance I get. When I needed to get an appointment for my Mom I started writing a user script to help with that. [2] [1] https://dalewharrison.substack.com/p/vaccine-boosterism https://dalewharrison.substack.com/p/vaccine-boosterism [2] https://gist.github.com/gregwebs/265e0ef6b1a3051377cfc4d66acecf81 https://gist.github.com/gregwebs/265e0ef6b1a3051377cfc4d66ac...
- jjcon 6y ago
  > the vaccines provide little protection against an upper respiratory tract infection They prevent symptomatic covid infection which includes respiratory symptoms.
fastball 6y ago
I don't think "against transmission period" is really possible, no? The whole point of a vaccine is to prime your immune system, it does not provide a magical shield to your body. If you get exposed to COVID-19 after being vaxxed, you will still have COVID-19 in your system for some amount of time. It will just (hopefully) get killed very quickly when the memory B/T cells (that were created by your body when you had an immune response to the vaccine) ramp up production.
quantgenius 6y ago
It’s a percentage reduction in risk. If a random unvaccinated person has a 10% chance of infection and a vaccinated person has a 1% chance of infection, the vaccine is 90% effective.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

I wish it was easier to tell which vaccine was the better one to take. I know the "correct" answer is "whichever one is available to you", but let's pretend we're free-agent adults here and put the infantile answers aside for a moment. There seems to be a very strong urge not to compare any of them as better, which puts users in a position of information asymmetry where they might not make the best health choices for themselves. Is there any realistic way to compare which of the vaccine selections available in the USA is better given certain conditions? For example, if someone has a history of reacting to vaccines (GBS), is the attenuated adenovirus from J&J a better choice compared to the mRNA alternatives?

smnrchrds 6y ago
I think that's what the challenge study was supposed to do, but it didn't go ahead.
_delirium 6y ago
I'm not sure there's enough data at the moment to give an answer. Each of the approved vaccines had a double-blind placebo-controlled study run, but on different timelines and in different locations, so it's hard to conclude much from small differences between the reported numbers.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Right, unless you do a full trial with all vaccines side by side with similar sample/timeline, it's not really possible to tell. Also, the error bar on these effectiveness numbers are realistically probably +/- 5% or more, so it's not like a 76% is definitely worse than the 80%. The dosage also matters. J&J for example decided to study one dose first, but are now doing a phase trial to see how good the immunity is for a 2-dose program. So potentially if you get a second dose (maybe down the line), you will also get a stronger immunity closer to the other 2 dose vaccines.
  - hannob 6y ago
    > Also, the error bar on these effectiveness numbers are realistically probably +/- 5% or more, so it's not like a 76% is definitely worse than the 80%. But we're talking 91% vs. 76%.

alrex021 6y ago

Hilarious that they still label it as a country variant, as if the variant carries a genetic “country” code that determines the origin. Plain stupidity. [Edit] To elaborate since there is so much negativity to my original comment. There is no absolute proof that the variant originated in South Africa, so calling it by a country’s name is an insult to human intelligence. We refer to the virus as the Coronavirus and not the Chinese virus. Why should the variant be any different? (This variant being actually called 501.V2)

eplanit 6y ago
And note that it's not racist to name a variant by where it is found, but it is racist and xenophobic to name the original form similarly.
- jdavis703 6y ago
  This needs a citation or more detailed explanation for why it’s not problematic.
  - da_big_ghey 6y ago
    If I am refer to "British variant", no person is thinking I am racist against Englishmen. If I am refer to "Chinese virus", every person is thinking I am racist against Chinamen. But it is not "Asian coronavirus", that would be having more credible potential for racism. Persons who are using term in racist way are symptom, not problem: even while we are seeing use of alternate terms in all places, there still has been in past year increasing of hate crime against Asian. Neither terming has problem, British nor Chinese. It is a simple easy. Common man is not having any desire for to remember scientific names for any thing. And in last point, some persons are say that it create stigma against China: this is feature, not bug. China is deserving much fault for her failings in this manner.
    - Dirlewanger 6y ago
      Must get tiring to perform all these mental gymnastics

99_00 6y ago

If you told me that in 2021 there would be a global genetic engineering campaign I would have said you were crazy. But here we are. What an amazing time.

earthboundkid 6y ago
"Global genetic engineering campaign" suggests that the genes of humans are being edited, but it's just the genes of the vaccine.
- 99_00 6y ago
  The vaccine deliveries genetic material into the cells, and the cells create protein using this genetic material. How isn't this genetic engineering?
  - mahogany 6y ago
    Unless I'm misunderstanding, the host's DNA is not changed during this process. When I think of genetic engineering, I think of "changing the host's genome". What does genetic engineering mean to you?
    - 99_00 6y ago
      the deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material.
      - adrianmonk 6y ago
        By this definition, the mRNA vaccines aren't genetic engineering. They don't manipulate the organism's genetic material. They borrow the machinery that the organism uses (downstream) when doing stuff with its genetic material. When I borrow your kitchen to cook my own recipe, I don't alter or even look at your cookbooks.
        6y ago

deepakhj 6y ago

It's a comparison between two control groups and the amount that were infected. X - vaccine - 25 people get it Y - no vaccine - 250 people get it That would mean it's 1 - 25/250 * 100 = 90% effective.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

beeforpork 6y ago

Funny how US media write 'Pfizer' and EU media write 'Biontech'. Patriotism, probably. Or for Reuters, maybe Brexit!? What's it usually called in Asian, South American, or African media? 'Pfizer/Biontech' or 'Biontech/Pfizer' is just too long!

cblconfederate 6y ago
We could have called them the Boris, Merkel, and Trump vaccines ...
woutr_be 6y ago
The Hong Kong government here usually uses its brand name “Comirnaty”. The news uses every variation “Pfizer-BioNTech”, “BioNTech”, “Pfizer”, or often just “the German made jab”.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  So can you walk in and say "give it to me German style" ?
  - woutr_be 6y ago
    No, you have to book your appointment online.
74d-fe6-2c6 6y ago
Referring to "that" vaccine with Pfizer instead of Biontech is like saying that "Yellow Submarine" is from EMI instead of the Beatles because EMI produced the LPs.
- jjcon 6y ago
  That’s why both companies are equally sharing both the costs and the profits?
  - 6y ago

cyberlurker 6y ago

I’m seeing a lot of similar concerns in the comments so I just want to post this video from Vox. They did a great job explaining this issue. Effectiveness doesn’t really mean much between approved vaccines in the US. Please watch this video: https://youtu.be/K3odScka55A https://youtu.be/K3odScka55A From what we know so far, any of the approved vaccines are excellent and no one knows for sure if one is better than the other. The only logical thing to do is get what is offered to you as soon as possible. That being said, this is excellent news that Pfizer is protective against the SA Variant. Not trying to minimize that news, just point out that it still is better to just get whatever approved vaccine you can.

fossuser 6y ago
I'm not sure I really buy that video - don't control groups account for differences in the general population at the time it was done? This Pfizer data, plus the results in Israel suggest that the mRNA vaccines really are just objectively better. They all prevent death and hospitalizations though so get the one you can get, but it seems likely the mRNA shots are better. The main thing I'm wondering is if the people that got covid post J&J had really mild disease (like a tiny cold or something) or "mild" disease like absolutely miserable but just didn't have to go to ICU. Is that information known? Basically the video confuses some of what the control group actually does and then says "well they all prevent death anyway" - no shit. The question is if one is better than the other and the answer seems like yes. The main counter would be the presence of variants, but the Israeli population faced variants and the mRNA efficacy rate held. This new Pfizer data suggests mRNA is just better.
- timr 6y ago
  > The main thing I'm wondering is if the people that got covid post J&J had really mild disease (like a tiny cold or something) or "mild" disease like absolutely miserable but just didn't have to go to ICU. Is that information known? Of course. It's right there in the FDA report, starting on page 51: https://www.fda.gov/media/146219/download https://www.fda.gov/media/146219/download 7.1.1.5.3 Case Definition for Mild COVID-19 • A SARS-CoV-2 positive RT-PCR or molecular test result from any available respiratory tract sample (eg, nasal swab sample, sputum sample, throat swab sample, saliva sample) or other sample; AND at any time during the course of observation: • One of the following symptoms: fever (≥38.0°C or ≥100.4°F), sore throat, malaise (loss of appetite, generally unwell, fatigue, physical weakness), headache, muscle pain (myalgia), gastrointestinal symptoms, cough, chest congestion, runny nose, wheezing, skin rash, eye irritation or discharge, chills, new or changing olfactory or taste disorders, red or bruised looking feet or toes, or shaking chills or rigors. You will find equivalently precise definitions of moderate and severe disease, as well. And if you care to look, you can find the same thing for all of the other FDA-approved vaccines. They're similar, but not identical. In general, "mild disease" is what most reasonable people would consider to be mild disease, but there are minor differences in terms of which specific symptoms/thresholds are used. For this vaccine specifically, you can see that having two or more of the above symptoms will bump you into the "moderate disease" category. So they're pretty strict. > The question is if one is better than the other and the answer seems like yes. Given that you clearly haven't read the data, I don't know how you can possibly make such a speculation. I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but this entire affair has been defined by people who are way too willing to speculate after reading a few news articles.

josmala 6y ago

It's good day to announce this. People are taking all announcements today very seriously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v53EUMNSdQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v53EUMNSdQs

aww_dang 6y ago

As a layman who is generally skeptical of media promotions, 91% sounds wonderful. According to a recent study 100% of young teenagers found it effective. On face value the marketing sounds good. However, I wouldn't be interested personally. If after long term use these vaccines prove to be everything they are promised to be _and_ coronvirus remains an issue, I would gladly take it. As it is I am relatively healthy and not at risk. Reasonable people can disagree on the trustworthiness of media, government and technocrats. Ultimately, trust is earned. It is up to the individual to decide for himself. Attempts to scare people into vaccination or mandate use don't help the sale. Trust has been lost. Until this has been addressed, the optics surrounding the promotion of these vaccines can appear as hard sell, urgency, "act now while supplies last" scare techniques. I know many here are convinced. Hopefully this gives some insight into the skeptical view. Tinfoil or microchip implants don't play a role.

zzzeek 6y ago
> However, I wouldn't be interested personally. If after long term use these vaccines prove to be everything they are promised to be _and_ coronvirus remains an issue, I would gladly take it. As it is I am relatively healthy and not at risk. if you get the coronavirus you put other people at risk. Risk of death, in fact. shrugging off covid as not your problem is actually unethical.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  >...you put other people at risk. Risk of death! Without knowing anything about my situation, you jump to the furthest extreme. Please understand how this speaks exactly to my point.
  - ceh123 6y ago
    I'd love to hear how this analysis does not apply to your situation.
  - ArgyleSound 6y ago
    Unless you withdraw from society, it will unfortunately remain an issue

Black101 6y ago

I just got my first dose but they have no appointment available for the second dose so I wonder how effective it is with only one dose.

rootusrootus 6y ago
Nothing that has been proven conclusively, but evidence suggests that in the near term you get over 90% effectiveness >12 days after the first dose. What isn't known is how long that phase lasts before fading. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about delaying a bit, as long as it wasn't more than a month or so.
- Black101 6y ago
  My state tells me that the best time-frame to get the 2nd dose is 21-42 days after 1st dose. But luckily some sloths because available (maybe they weren't scheduling that far out yet).
yellowapple 6y ago
It's weird that it's even possible for someplace to be able to schedule the first dose and not the second. I noticed that with my local Smith's when I was vaccine hunting, too - I could pick a date for the first dose no problem, but nothing available for the second. What gives? You'd think it'd be the other way around if anything.
- asdff 6y ago
  My second dose was automatically scheduled after receiving my first.

chmod600 6y ago

Does anyone expect covid to be a significant cause of death in the US past, say, May 15? I guess if we get another wave very soon, maybe it could persist. But it just seems like this is on its way out between organic immunity and vaccine immunity (especially because the latter was focused on the vulnerable). I'm not an expert, so don't take this as advice to go coughing on everyone. But we all have to make some decisions based on imperfect information and it seems like covid is nearly knocked out. There is some concern over another wave, but it might just be minor cases from unvaccinated young people. That hopefully won't lead to a lot more deaths.

roywiggins 6y ago
We are already seeing the beginning of a new wave in Michigan. > But she said the most significant increase in hospitalizations in the state is in people in their 50s, a group still at risk of becoming severely ill or dying from Covid-19. Younger people have driven the rapid increase in cases recently, she said, including high school students who participate in sports and have contracted the virus through those activities. > “I do think this could be the beginning of a third surge,” Dr. Khaldun said, after an initial rush of cases in Michigan last March and April, followed by a surge in October and November. “I am concerned. But I also think there are things that we can do today that will start to turn that curve down.” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/us/michigan-covid-outbreak.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/us/michigan-covid-outbrea...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- seizethecheese 6y ago
  Sure, a new wave of cases, but will it translate to deaths? My understanding is that most deaths come from 20% of population and we have vaccinated over 30%.
  - hammock 6y ago
    >most deaths come from 20% of population and we have vaccinated over 30%. In the US, most (59%) deaths come from people aged 75+ according to CDC. People aged 75+ make up roughly 12% of the population.

solarkraft 6y ago

The vaccine was developed by BioNTech. Its name is Comirnaty. It's not the "Pfizer vaccine".

paconbork 6y ago
https://xkcd.com/2275/ https://xkcd.com/2275/
jakub_jo 6y ago
US HN downvotes you.

newdude116 6y ago

Expect to get vaccinated several times a year. No kidding. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccines-idUSKCN2AV0H6 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-vac... "The European Union aims to increase the region’s COVID-19 vaccine production capacity to 2-3 billion doses per year by the end of 2021" Hint: The EU has about 400 Million people

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jauntbox 6y ago
Isn't that because a lot of their vaccines get shipped all over the world? We need doses for ~7B people in total. I don't see anything there that says they're planning on administering multiple vaccination rounds per person.
- newdude116 6y ago
  https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/eu-hopes-to-produce-up-to-3-bn-vaccine-doses-a-year-by-end-of-2021/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/eu-hopes-t... 3 bn PER year. Trust me. You may have to get vaccinated every year. Don't get me wrong, the strategy makes sense. Still not very encouraging.
corty 6y ago
Well, two shots a year, probably, maybe less. The real reason the EU needs this kind of capacity is that the current EU vaccination campaign is going very poorly. Most of the population will only get vaccinated late in summer and autumn, so the yearly capacity needs to be appropriate to at least get it done this year and before the next flu season. Oh, and the EU produces vaccines for a lot of others like UK, Israel and the US, as well as most third-world-countries. Imports into the EU are neglegible.
kyboren 6y ago
Hint: The world has more than 400 million people.

jakub_jo 6y ago

Reuters fixed the title and added BioNTech. Someone at HN should update the submission's title.

jgalt212 6y ago

There are many businesses that have adapted to and prefer pandemic life. They, perhaps even more so than the hysterics, are our major blockers to returning to normalcy.

icod 6y ago

Sorry but I don't believe it. In the very beginning of the South African variant there was a report that it wouldn't protect against it and other variants. They're the most expensive vaccine and they want to keep selling their product. I just lost faith in anything. When politicians make a profit from a prolonged emergency situation they have no reason to shorten the pandemic period. I'm talking about German politicians getting a commission on masks, and them being the ones who decide which kinds of masks are required. It's all so corrupt. I'm waiting for the Russian and/or Chinese vaccine, maybe travel to Serbia to get my Sputnik V shots, since the EU is playing it political. About a month ago they were even suggesting that "Can we trust the Russian vaccine or is it a Trojan Horse" I mean, suggesting that the Russians would knowingly kill the population of the EU. How through and through Nazified is Germany? Why would I pick the Sputnik V one over all others? Because they have prior knowledge and are doing 2 vectors (I'm not an expert but I read something about them doing ... well 2 vectors so the virus can't develop a resistence against the vaccine). I trust the Russian government more than my own, who has time and against lied and deceived me, even denounced what we were demonstrating against the new copyright laws and upload filters. The EU is corrupt through and through and they walk over dead bodies. Especially this new EU council lead by Ursula von der Leyen. Who even elected her? No one that's who. She has a past where she was involved in a corruption scandal and the phone with evidence on it, a state owned phone, was magically erased just when the evidence was to be secured. So yeah I don't trust anything that's developed in the EU and much less GB who voted pro those harmful "copyright" laws so they could have an advantage when they brexitted. Astazenica kills people. A Vaccine that kills people. WTF. And politicians are debating that it should now be used on the elderly, because hey fuck the elderly right, they're old and almost dead anyway... I can't eat how much I could puke.

javagram 6y ago
> Sorry but I don't believe it. > In the very beginning of the South African variant there was a report that it wouldn't protect against it and other variants. They're the most expensive vaccine and they want to keep selling their product. > I just lost faith in anything. When politicians make a profit from a prolonged emergency situation they have no reason to shorten the pandemic period [. . .] These two arguments you’re making contradict each other - the vaccine protection from the variant without an update shortens the pandemic period. An announcement that everyone needs to shelter in place while a new vaccine is developed is actually what would prolong it. Also, you seem to be placing more trust in an early “news report” than a scientific study, which makes no sense.

egberts 6y ago

Effective? You meant efficacy?