5 ms·

This is not full story. 65% efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 but 100% efficacy against death and hospitalization due to COVID-19. So there is real benefit

by e9 5y ago

This is not full story. 65% efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 but 100% efficacy against death and hospitalization due to COVID-19. So there is real benefit to it.

dheera 5y ago
Yes, but 65% efficacy still means that 1/3 of the vaccinated people will continue to be spreaders, which doesn't sound great, especially if that allows the virus to spread and evolve into a harsher variety.
- savanu 5y ago
  The different efficacy rates of the vaccines do not directly imply anything about spreading covid. A vaccinated person can have no symptoms of covid and still be spreading (This may or may not be true). Folks are still studying how effective the vaccines are at preventing spread.
  - kazinator 5y ago
    Keep in mind that a door handle is completely immune to Covid and can be spreading it.
    - dheera 5y ago
      Only for a few hours though, not 2 weeks+, and viruses don't mutate on a doorknob. Someone who got vaccine and falls in the ineffective category will likely not die but will be a spreader for a few weeks, with some nonzero probability of mutation, and that times 1/3 of the population that got the vaccine would give the virus a lot of opportunity to mutate.
      - kazinator 5y ago
        According to some experts, Covid-19 can endure on certain surfaces for as long as six days.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - dheera 5y ago
    Okay, but until they're done studying, maybe let's just make more of the 94% vaccine using J&J's facilities?
    - ghaff 5y ago
      You do realize that different manufacturing facilities are not interchangeable? They're not a rack of x86 servers.
  - cactus2093 5y ago
    > A vaccinated person can have no symptoms of covid and still be spreading Aren't the efficacy numbers from the phase 3 trials based on giving periodic PCR tests to everyone that was participating in the trials? And not just based on people self-reporting symptoms? It would be very surprising if there were a new kind of asymptomatic carrier that emerged only for people having taken certain vaccines in which they would never test positive on a PCR test but could still spread covid. The odds that this is how the vaccines work seems very small, relative to the number of times this argument that "we don't know yet" is getting repeated. It just seems strange to me that so many people are hung up on pointing out that this small possibility is still a possibility. It seems more likely that this will drive more people to skip the vaccine, since they're being told they can't even go back to normal once vaccinated, than anything else.
    - savanu 5y ago
      I don't think the fact that you might be still spreading covid when vaccinated is enough of a reason to continue lockdown. As long we are continually getting people vaccinated, we should be fine for returning to normal.
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      > Aren't the efficacy numbers from the phase 3 trials based on giving periodic PCR tests to everyone that was participating in the trials? For most trials, no. You have to look at each individual study, but most commonly, they only test after people show specific symptoms.
    - xiii1408 5y ago
      Depends on the particular trial, but the clinical trial data used to get FDA approval usually measures symptomatic cases, which is a combination of coronavirus symptoms and positive PCR test. There's some additional data which indicates Pfizer and Moderna are likely to limit transmission, but from my understanding it's not as ironclad as the symptomatic cases data.
- thelean12 5y ago
  At this stage, getting as many people to near 100% death avoidance and with some immunity is the goal. We're not at a stage yet when we can play favorites. It'll be a long time before we have the supply to prefer one over the other (except maybe in the US where there will be enough mRNA vaccines to go around).
- M_bara 5y ago
  Not necessarily. Efficacy measures are about protection from hospitalisation or death if you contract COVID. It doesn’t imply loss of viral shedding. There’s a vox video on YouTube that explains this...
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Lol if the people that don't get it and it's more or less a cold it's not a big deal. If you go to the hospital your chances of dying from it go up astronomically. How can you miss that most basic of points?
TrevorJ 5y ago
This is a leaky vaccine, which is actually a big health risk. You remove selection pressure for lack of virulence, so more fatal strains can spread more easily. Definitely not a good thing.
- narrator 5y ago
  I know about Marek's disease in chickens, but has a leaky vaccine ever caused a virus to evolve like that in humans?
  - TrevorJ 5y ago
    Would there be anything in particular about the study of that case which would not be valid in humans? I've seen articles/studies from before Covid that suggest this sort of thing could be a concern in humans, but no reported cases of it happening. On the other hand, we don't exactly have a control group, so there's not a good way to tell.

by e9 5y ago

This is not full story. 65% efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 but 100% efficacy against death and hospitalization due to COVID-19. So there is real benefit to it.

dheera 5y ago

Yes, but 65% efficacy still means that 1/3 of the vaccinated people will continue to be spreaders, which doesn't sound great, especially if that allows the virus to spread and evolve into a harsher variety.

savanu 5y ago
The different efficacy rates of the vaccines do not directly imply anything about spreading covid. A vaccinated person can have no symptoms of covid and still be spreading (This may or may not be true). Folks are still studying how effective the vaccines are at preventing spread.
- kazinator 5y ago
  Keep in mind that a door handle is completely immune to Covid and can be spreading it.
  - dheera 5y ago
    Only for a few hours though, not 2 weeks+, and viruses don't mutate on a doorknob. Someone who got vaccine and falls in the ineffective category will likely not die but will be a spreader for a few weeks, with some nonzero probability of mutation, and that times 1/3 of the population that got the vaccine would give the virus a lot of opportunity to mutate.
    - kazinator 5y ago
      According to some experts, Covid-19 can endure on certain surfaces for as long as six days.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- dheera 5y ago
  Okay, but until they're done studying, maybe let's just make more of the 94% vaccine using J&J's facilities?
  - ghaff 5y ago
    You do realize that different manufacturing facilities are not interchangeable? They're not a rack of x86 servers.
- cactus2093 5y ago
  > A vaccinated person can have no symptoms of covid and still be spreading Aren't the efficacy numbers from the phase 3 trials based on giving periodic PCR tests to everyone that was participating in the trials? And not just based on people self-reporting symptoms? It would be very surprising if there were a new kind of asymptomatic carrier that emerged only for people having taken certain vaccines in which they would never test positive on a PCR test but could still spread covid. The odds that this is how the vaccines work seems very small, relative to the number of times this argument that "we don't know yet" is getting repeated. It just seems strange to me that so many people are hung up on pointing out that this small possibility is still a possibility. It seems more likely that this will drive more people to skip the vaccine, since they're being told they can't even go back to normal once vaccinated, than anything else.
  - savanu 5y ago
    I don't think the fact that you might be still spreading covid when vaccinated is enough of a reason to continue lockdown. As long we are continually getting people vaccinated, we should be fine for returning to normal.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    > Aren't the efficacy numbers from the phase 3 trials based on giving periodic PCR tests to everyone that was participating in the trials? For most trials, no. You have to look at each individual study, but most commonly, they only test after people show specific symptoms.
  - xiii1408 5y ago
    Depends on the particular trial, but the clinical trial data used to get FDA approval usually measures symptomatic cases, which is a combination of coronavirus symptoms and positive PCR test. There's some additional data which indicates Pfizer and Moderna are likely to limit transmission, but from my understanding it's not as ironclad as the symptomatic cases data.
thelean12 5y ago
At this stage, getting as many people to near 100% death avoidance and with some immunity is the goal. We're not at a stage yet when we can play favorites. It'll be a long time before we have the supply to prefer one over the other (except maybe in the US where there will be enough mRNA vaccines to go around).
M_bara 5y ago
Not necessarily. Efficacy measures are about protection from hospitalisation or death if you contract COVID. It doesn’t imply loss of viral shedding. There’s a vox video on YouTube that explains this...
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Lol if the people that don't get it and it's more or less a cold it's not a big deal. If you go to the hospital your chances of dying from it go up astronomically. How can you miss that most basic of points?

TrevorJ 5y ago

This is a leaky vaccine, which is actually a big health risk. You remove selection pressure for lack of virulence, so more fatal strains can spread more easily. Definitely not a good thing.

narrator 5y ago
I know about Marek's disease in chickens, but has a leaky vaccine ever caused a virus to evolve like that in humans?
- TrevorJ 5y ago
  Would there be anything in particular about the study of that case which would not be valid in humans? I've seen articles/studies from before Covid that suggest this sort of thing could be a concern in humans, but no reported cases of it happening. On the other hand, we don't exactly have a control group, so there's not a good way to tell.