3 ms·

> The Israel study (not "studies") is an outlier, and is inconsistent with the other studies that have been done so far. This is not accurate. There have been

by bryan0 5y ago

> The Israel study (not "studies") is an outlier, and is inconsistent with the other studies that have been done so far. This is not accurate. There have been several studies demonstrating waning inline with Israel’s data: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-vaccine-protection-fading https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-vaccine-protection-fadi... https://www.axios.com/pfizer-moderna-coronavirus-vaccines-effectiveness-data-4a681617-d887-4b21-93a3-d6c2d9d51b31.html https://www.axios.com/pfizer-moderna-coronavirus-vaccines-ef... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v... The nejm study you reference is great, but it only goes up to 6 months! We want to look at waning in the 6-9+ month period to see if boosters are needed.

timr 5y ago
> There have been several studies demonstrating waning inline with Israel’s data: You cite three links: the first is self-reported data, which is problematic. Nevertheless, it still finds effectiveness against infection of 74%. This is a bit lower than the other studies (consensus is around 80%), but not dramatically so. If anything, it is evidence that the vaccines remain effective against the most challenging endpoint (infection), with only minor declines in effectiveness that might just as easily be statistical noise. The second is a news article, referencing the Israeli study. It is not "a study". It is not new information. The third is the Mayo clinic study (covered in the Twitter thread from Muge Cevik) and explicitly says that vaccinations remain highly effective against infection and hospitalization over the study period, and tries to extrapolate from a fluctuation in infection data in the final month of the study. This is sketchy: > Both vaccines were highly effective during this study period against SARS-CoV-2 infection (mRNA-1273: 86%, 95%CI: 81-90.6%; BNT162b2: 76%, 95%CI: 69-81%) and COVID-19 associated hospitalization (mRNA-1273: 91.6%, 95% CI: 81-97%; BNT162b2: 85%, 95% CI: 73-93%). However, in July, the effectiveness against infection was considerably lower for mRNA-1273 (76%, 95% CI: 58-87%) with an even more pronounced reduction in effectiveness for BNT162b2 (42%, 95% CI: 13-62%). Again, this claim is an outlier. When you have an outlier based on questionable methodology, you must be skeptical of the claim. > The nejm study you reference is great, but it only goes up to 6 months! We want to look at waning in the 6-9+ month period to see if boosters are needed. The NEJM is just the latest study, not the only study. Also, the two studies that vex you so -- both the Israeli and the Mayo clinic study -- occurred within six months of their vaccination programs. Essentially, you're projecting doom based on two studies that disagree with the ~dozen others that have been conducted, that have methodological problems, and are inconsistent with known biology. When given evidence to the contrary, you dismiss it, in favor of speculation about what might happen tomorrow. You're latching on to outliers which confirm your biases.
- bryan0 5y ago
  > The second is a news article, referencing the Israeli study. It is not "a study". It is not new information. These second link references a few studies including this one from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm7037e2_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm... > Again, this claim is an outlier. When there are several independent studies showing the same thing, they are no longer outliers. > Also, the two studies that vex you so -- both the Israeli and the Mayo clinic study -- occurred within six months of their vaccination programs. Here is another study published in nejm about the affects of boosters in Israel in August: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 > Essentially, you're projecting doom Ok let me be clear here. I am not intending to project doom, what I am trying to project is that there is real data which shows boosters are beneficial. Of course the vaccines even without boosters are clearly extremely effective. Even as breakthrough cases increase because of waning immunity, the prognosis for someone fully vaccinated is very different compared to someone who is unvaccinated. The main thing I disagree with you with, and would use your argument against you, is that there clearly is real data showing waning effectiveness and the benefit of boosters. The main argument for not recommending them is that the vaccines would be better off for people that have not been vaccinated in the first place. Well no shit, but if that population is refusing to take them then the point is moot.

by bryan0 5y ago

timr 5y ago

> There have been several studies demonstrating waning inline with Israel’s data: You cite three links: the first is self-reported data, which is problematic. Nevertheless, it still finds effectiveness against infection of 74%. This is a bit lower than the other studies (consensus is around 80%), but not dramatically so. If anything, it is evidence that the vaccines remain effective against the most challenging endpoint (infection), with only minor declines in effectiveness that might just as easily be statistical noise. The second is a news article, referencing the Israeli study. It is not "a study". It is not new information. The third is the Mayo clinic study (covered in the Twitter thread from Muge Cevik) and explicitly says that vaccinations remain highly effective against infection and hospitalization over the study period, and tries to extrapolate from a fluctuation in infection data in the final month of the study. This is sketchy: > Both vaccines were highly effective during this study period against SARS-CoV-2 infection (mRNA-1273: 86%, 95%CI: 81-90.6%; BNT162b2: 76%, 95%CI: 69-81%) and COVID-19 associated hospitalization (mRNA-1273: 91.6%, 95% CI: 81-97%; BNT162b2: 85%, 95% CI: 73-93%). However, in July, the effectiveness against infection was considerably lower for mRNA-1273 (76%, 95% CI: 58-87%) with an even more pronounced reduction in effectiveness for BNT162b2 (42%, 95% CI: 13-62%). Again, this claim is an outlier. When you have an outlier based on questionable methodology, you must be skeptical of the claim. > The nejm study you reference is great, but it only goes up to 6 months! We want to look at waning in the 6-9+ month period to see if boosters are needed. The NEJM is just the latest study, not the only study. Also, the two studies that vex you so -- both the Israeli and the Mayo clinic study -- occurred within six months of their vaccination programs. Essentially, you're projecting doom based on two studies that disagree with the ~dozen others that have been conducted, that have methodological problems, and are inconsistent with known biology. When given evidence to the contrary, you dismiss it, in favor of speculation about what might happen tomorrow. You're latching on to outliers which confirm your biases.

bryan0 5y ago
> The second is a news article, referencing the Israeli study. It is not "a study". It is not new information. These second link references a few studies including this one from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm7037e2_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm... > Again, this claim is an outlier. When there are several independent studies showing the same thing, they are no longer outliers. > Also, the two studies that vex you so -- both the Israeli and the Mayo clinic study -- occurred within six months of their vaccination programs. Here is another study published in nejm about the affects of boosters in Israel in August: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 > Essentially, you're projecting doom Ok let me be clear here. I am not intending to project doom, what I am trying to project is that there is real data which shows boosters are beneficial. Of course the vaccines even without boosters are clearly extremely effective. Even as breakthrough cases increase because of waning immunity, the prognosis for someone fully vaccinated is very different compared to someone who is unvaccinated. The main thing I disagree with you with, and would use your argument against you, is that there clearly is real data showing waning effectiveness and the benefit of boosters. The main argument for not recommending them is that the vaccines would be better off for people that have not been vaccinated in the first place. Well no shit, but if that population is refusing to take them then the point is moot.