5 ms·

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 does

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.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    Thanks - that makes me feel better about how they define mild, and thanks for the direct reference. Earlier in the pandemic mild was being used to mean only not hospitalized. > “I don't know how you can possibly make such a speculation.” I don’t mean to come across as overconfident, is my understanding of efficacy wrong? Or the purpose of control groups? I’m happy to be wrong or corrected. The speculation comes from the efficacy numbers and the results in Israel - is there a reason to dismiss those? Edit: Reading the Pfizer results from here (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download) it seems like fewer moderate/severe cases of covid in the vaccinated population when compared to J&J (taking into account both of their placebo groups)? I’m not sure if I’m reading these correctly, but the docs don’t seem to contradict my impression that the mRNA vaccines are better.
starik36 6y ago
I am not sure that it's a good explanation. Just the opposite. J&J's excuse for 66% effectiveness is that they were tested when there was more Covid going around? That's exactly when the vaccine is supposed to protect you. Not when there isn't an opportunity to catch the disease. And if we then take this claim on its face, then Pfizer and Moderna vaccine stated effectiveness is pointless, since it wasn't tested during the worst times. Finally, the claim that no one in the study group that did catch the virus ended up in the hospital is also based on self-selective bias. I am assuming people in the study were younger people who needed the money and not older folks who are at a higher risk. I am not saying that it's not true - just that the biases need to be taken into account in any study.
- cma 6y ago
  > That's exactly when the vaccine is supposed to protect you. Not when there isn't an opportunity to catch the disease. Are they saying the other vaccines were tested when you had lower chance of multiple exposures, and they were tested when there was higher chance, and it isn't controlled for in coming up with that number?
  - starik36 6y ago
    Correct. That’s what the video states.
- tzs 6y ago
  > I am assuming people in the study were younger people who needed the money and not older folks who are at a higher risk. That may be true in the earlier phases, when you are just trying to show that the vaccine isn't too harmful and works in at least some cases. It's not true for the large phase 3 trials. For those you try for a study group that matches the demographics of the people who will be getting the vaccine in the wild. For the J&J phase 3 trial, 34% of the participants were over 60. 41% had comorbidities associated with an increased risk for progression to severe COVID. Race was 74% white, 13% black, 6% Asian, and 1% Native American. Ethnicity was 15% Hispanic. Pfizer was 45% age 56-85, Moderna was 16% over 65. Race for both was about 80% white, 10% black, 4-5% Asian, 1% Native. Ethnicity was 26% Hispanic for Pfizer, 20% for Moderna. I don't know what percent had comorbidities.
treme 6y ago
This is same thing that happened with CDC and "masks aren't needed". A white lie with good intent but nevertheless just false info. I'm sure if we polled all the bio-phd's with option between the vaccines, they will all choose mRNA based ones because they have higher protection %'s, and significantly lower side effect risks. Most countries don't have the luxury of giving their citizens the choice, so they resort to making up a lie to calm people from "bank run" on mRNA vaccines. https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/mh7wtw/astrazeneca_covid19_vaccine_review_of_very_rare/ https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/mh7wtw/astrazeneca... "It was mentioned by Emer Cooke during the press conference. "For the AZ vaccine based on spontaneous reporting in the EEA it's 4.8 cases per million, for the Biontech vaccine, based on the same criteria it was 0.2 cases per million and for the Moderna vaccine, based on the same criteria, 0 cases per million" So ~25 fold compared to the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine. 0.2 cases per million is in line with the expected number of cases in the general population. The Moderna vaccine probably hasn't been used enough in the EEA for such rare events to occur. It's also worth keeping in mind that these numbers are based on older data. It is based on 62 reported cases (of which 44 are in the EEA). Germany alone has reported 31 cases and they aren't all included here. So expect these numbers for the AZ vaccine to go up a bit when they announce their updated recommendations at the plenary meeting next week."
- krona 6y ago
  You're mixing statistics from different testing protocols. Apples and oranges.
blub 6y ago
Of course citizen. All of them are excellent and equal, but some are more excellent and equal than the others.
MuffinFlavored 6y ago
Genuinely asking: What happens if you are vaccinated but then exposed to a variant of COVID your vaccine doesn't support? Is it the same as having no vaccine at all? > The only logical thing to do is get what is offered to you as soon as possible. Is there any reason to be skeptical of the vaccine? Long term effects, etc. I don't normally get a flu shot or go to the doctor or anything like that. I'm pretty nervous. I used to date an anti-vaxxer who swore some kind of shot gave her brother autism... Obviously that's material to get downvoted and laughed at here on HackerNews but... just thought I'd bring my "atypical" perspective to the table.
- xen2xen1 6y ago
  All evidence points to the your symptoms being much lower if you have the vaccine even if it's a different mutation. If the vaccine really did nothing for a certain mutation it would be front page news all over the world.

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.
- fossuser 6y ago
  Thanks - that makes me feel better about how they define mild, and thanks for the direct reference. Earlier in the pandemic mild was being used to mean only not hospitalized. > “I don't know how you can possibly make such a speculation.” I don’t mean to come across as overconfident, is my understanding of efficacy wrong? Or the purpose of control groups? I’m happy to be wrong or corrected. The speculation comes from the efficacy numbers and the results in Israel - is there a reason to dismiss those? Edit: Reading the Pfizer results from here (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download) it seems like fewer moderate/severe cases of covid in the vaccinated population when compared to J&J (taking into account both of their placebo groups)? I’m not sure if I’m reading these correctly, but the docs don’t seem to contradict my impression that the mRNA vaccines are better.

starik36 6y ago

I am not sure that it's a good explanation. Just the opposite. J&J's excuse for 66% effectiveness is that they were tested when there was more Covid going around? That's exactly when the vaccine is supposed to protect you. Not when there isn't an opportunity to catch the disease. And if we then take this claim on its face, then Pfizer and Moderna vaccine stated effectiveness is pointless, since it wasn't tested during the worst times. Finally, the claim that no one in the study group that did catch the virus ended up in the hospital is also based on self-selective bias. I am assuming people in the study were younger people who needed the money and not older folks who are at a higher risk. I am not saying that it's not true - just that the biases need to be taken into account in any study.

cma 6y ago
> That's exactly when the vaccine is supposed to protect you. Not when there isn't an opportunity to catch the disease. Are they saying the other vaccines were tested when you had lower chance of multiple exposures, and they were tested when there was higher chance, and it isn't controlled for in coming up with that number?
- starik36 6y ago
  Correct. That’s what the video states.
tzs 6y ago
> I am assuming people in the study were younger people who needed the money and not older folks who are at a higher risk. That may be true in the earlier phases, when you are just trying to show that the vaccine isn't too harmful and works in at least some cases. It's not true for the large phase 3 trials. For those you try for a study group that matches the demographics of the people who will be getting the vaccine in the wild. For the J&J phase 3 trial, 34% of the participants were over 60. 41% had comorbidities associated with an increased risk for progression to severe COVID. Race was 74% white, 13% black, 6% Asian, and 1% Native American. Ethnicity was 15% Hispanic. Pfizer was 45% age 56-85, Moderna was 16% over 65. Race for both was about 80% white, 10% black, 4-5% Asian, 1% Native. Ethnicity was 26% Hispanic for Pfizer, 20% for Moderna. I don't know what percent had comorbidities.

treme 6y ago

This is same thing that happened with CDC and "masks aren't needed". A white lie with good intent but nevertheless just false info. I'm sure if we polled all the bio-phd's with option between the vaccines, they will all choose mRNA based ones because they have higher protection %'s, and significantly lower side effect risks. Most countries don't have the luxury of giving their citizens the choice, so they resort to making up a lie to calm people from "bank run" on mRNA vaccines. https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/mh7wtw/astrazeneca_covid19_vaccine_review_of_very_rare/ https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/mh7wtw/astrazeneca... "It was mentioned by Emer Cooke during the press conference. "For the AZ vaccine based on spontaneous reporting in the EEA it's 4.8 cases per million, for the Biontech vaccine, based on the same criteria it was 0.2 cases per million and for the Moderna vaccine, based on the same criteria, 0 cases per million" So ~25 fold compared to the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine. 0.2 cases per million is in line with the expected number of cases in the general population. The Moderna vaccine probably hasn't been used enough in the EEA for such rare events to occur. It's also worth keeping in mind that these numbers are based on older data. It is based on 62 reported cases (of which 44 are in the EEA). Germany alone has reported 31 cases and they aren't all included here. So expect these numbers for the AZ vaccine to go up a bit when they announce their updated recommendations at the plenary meeting next week."

krona 6y ago
You're mixing statistics from different testing protocols. Apples and oranges.

blub 6y ago

Of course citizen. All of them are excellent and equal, but some are more excellent and equal than the others.

MuffinFlavored 6y ago

Genuinely asking: What happens if you are vaccinated but then exposed to a variant of COVID your vaccine doesn't support? Is it the same as having no vaccine at all? > The only logical thing to do is get what is offered to you as soon as possible. Is there any reason to be skeptical of the vaccine? Long term effects, etc. I don't normally get a flu shot or go to the doctor or anything like that. I'm pretty nervous. I used to date an anti-vaxxer who swore some kind of shot gave her brother autism... Obviously that's material to get downvoted and laughed at here on HackerNews but... just thought I'd bring my "atypical" perspective to the table.

xen2xen1 6y ago
All evidence points to the your symptoms being much lower if you have the vaccine even if it's a different mutation. If the vaccine really did nothing for a certain mutation it would be front page news all over the world.