4 ms·

From the report in your link... > During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–conf

From the report in your link... > During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection Full vax is only 80% effective? This is quite a bit lower than what the news has been reporting, in the mid-to-high 90's

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Full vax is only 80% effective? This is quite a bit lower than what the news has been reporting, in the mid-to-high 90's mid-to-high 90s is cited as the effectiveness at preventing severe COVID or hospitalization. Effectiveness at preventing detectable infection is obviously going to be lower, because asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections can occur.
- listenallyall 5y ago
  No, the CDC says Based on evidence from clinical trials in people 16 years and older, the Pfizer-BioNTech (COMIRNATY) vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/Pfizer-BioNTech.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different... "Laboratory-confirmed infection". Not severe or hospitalized.
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    You misrepresented the results of the original study as per above. The vaccine is 80% effective at preventing infection in frontline health workers (who are at elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19). It is 95% effective at preventing infection across the general population.
jasonlaramburu 5y ago
>> During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection You conveniently omitted the end of the sentence you quoted. The full sentence is "During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline workers." Frontline health workers are at elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19, so it's reasonable that more of them would contract the virus, even with an effective vaccine. Did you intentionally misrepresent the results of the study by leaving this part out or was this just a careless omission?
- angelzen 5y ago
  CDC has instituted a policy where vaccinated people were instructed to test on symptoms, whereas unvaccinated people were instructed to test on contact with infected person. In a frontline healthcare setting, workers are constantly in contact with infected persons, thus the difference in testing regimens is maximized. Given that asymptomatic cases are a majority of the cases, such skewed data collection process will result in significant data taint. The faulty policy was active March-July 2021. TLDR. Any study making 'vaccine effectiveness against infection' claims based on US data overlapping March-July 2021 is subject to potential data taint and perhaps should be retracted. I'd rather look elsewhere for reliable epidemiological data. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777536 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777536 https://archive.is/PB8Q6/again?url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/07/28/world/covid-delta-variant-vaccine https://archive.is/PB8Q6/again?url=https://www.nytimes.com/l...
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    > In a frontline healthcare setting, workers are constantly in contact with infected persons, thus the difference in testing regimens is maximized. Given that asymptomatic cases are a majority of the cases, such skewed data collection process will result in significant data taint. I don’t see how this claim is supported by data. The studies referenced showed the vaccine was less effective (vs control) for frontline healthcare workers than the general population (80% vs 95%). If the data were really tainted as you claim, and there is systematic undercounting of asymptomatic breakthrough cases, we would expect the vaccine to perform as well or better in a frontline setting as it does in the general population. My point was that the parent blatantly misrepresented the results of this study to make a point supporting anti-vaxx positions. Why is this necessary?
    - angelzen 5y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps you'd get a better response if you were to formulate your questions in a less pointed way. For example, try 'covid vaccine sceptics' instead of 'anti-vaxx'. I can't speak for the parent poster, here are some thoughts: * As I mentioned, US data is not very credible because of a data collection fumble. * There are legitimate concerns of vaccine effectiveness dropping over time: either VE is constant over time, or boosters are necessary, but not both at the same time. Note Israel is at 40% population boosted. * Recent Canada data is the most promising with VE against Delta infection of 87-92%. The catch is that the measurement stops at 5 months. Perhaps mix & match + large interval between shots is the golden recipe! * OTOH, UK data is significantly less rosy. Assuming we believe PHE data (VE is negative in 30+yo age group) or the corrected version (VE is <50% in most age groups), something doesn't add up. May the winter season be light so we can hopefully put the covid crisis past us. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-vaccine-effectiveness-data-delayed-doses-mixing-matching-covid-19-vaccines-1.6205993 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-vaccine-effectiveness-... https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... https://twitter.com/LGradaigh/status/1436095950561419280 https://twitter.com/LGradaigh/status/1436095950561419280

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Full vax is only 80% effective? This is quite a bit lower than what the news has been reporting, in the mid-to-high 90's mid-to-high 90s is cited as the effectiveness at preventing severe COVID or hospitalization. Effectiveness at preventing detectable infection is obviously going to be lower, because asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections can occur.

listenallyall 5y ago
No, the CDC says Based on evidence from clinical trials in people 16 years and older, the Pfizer-BioNTech (COMIRNATY) vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/Pfizer-BioNTech.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different... "Laboratory-confirmed infection". Not severe or hospitalized.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  You misrepresented the results of the original study as per above. The vaccine is 80% effective at preventing infection in frontline health workers (who are at elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19). It is 95% effective at preventing infection across the general population.

jasonlaramburu 5y ago

>> During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection You conveniently omitted the end of the sentence you quoted. The full sentence is "During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline workers." Frontline health workers are at elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19, so it's reasonable that more of them would contract the virus, even with an effective vaccine. Did you intentionally misrepresent the results of the study by leaving this part out or was this just a careless omission?

angelzen 5y ago
CDC has instituted a policy where vaccinated people were instructed to test on symptoms, whereas unvaccinated people were instructed to test on contact with infected person. In a frontline healthcare setting, workers are constantly in contact with infected persons, thus the difference in testing regimens is maximized. Given that asymptomatic cases are a majority of the cases, such skewed data collection process will result in significant data taint. The faulty policy was active March-July 2021. TLDR. Any study making 'vaccine effectiveness against infection' claims based on US data overlapping March-July 2021 is subject to potential data taint and perhaps should be retracted. I'd rather look elsewhere for reliable epidemiological data. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777536 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777536 https://archive.is/PB8Q6/again?url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/07/28/world/covid-delta-variant-vaccine https://archive.is/PB8Q6/again?url=https://www.nytimes.com/l...
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  > In a frontline healthcare setting, workers are constantly in contact with infected persons, thus the difference in testing regimens is maximized. Given that asymptomatic cases are a majority of the cases, such skewed data collection process will result in significant data taint. I don’t see how this claim is supported by data. The studies referenced showed the vaccine was less effective (vs control) for frontline healthcare workers than the general population (80% vs 95%). If the data were really tainted as you claim, and there is systematic undercounting of asymptomatic breakthrough cases, we would expect the vaccine to perform as well or better in a frontline setting as it does in the general population. My point was that the parent blatantly misrepresented the results of this study to make a point supporting anti-vaxx positions. Why is this necessary?
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps you'd get a better response if you were to formulate your questions in a less pointed way. For example, try 'covid vaccine sceptics' instead of 'anti-vaxx'. I can't speak for the parent poster, here are some thoughts: * As I mentioned, US data is not very credible because of a data collection fumble. * There are legitimate concerns of vaccine effectiveness dropping over time: either VE is constant over time, or boosters are necessary, but not both at the same time. Note Israel is at 40% population boosted. * Recent Canada data is the most promising with VE against Delta infection of 87-92%. The catch is that the measurement stops at 5 months. Perhaps mix & match + large interval between shots is the golden recipe! * OTOH, UK data is significantly less rosy. Assuming we believe PHE data (VE is negative in 30+yo age group) or the corrected version (VE is <50% in most age groups), something doesn't add up. May the winter season be light so we can hopefully put the covid crisis past us. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-vaccine-effectiveness-data-delayed-doses-mixing-matching-covid-19-vaccines-1.6205993 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-vaccine-effectiveness-... https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... https://twitter.com/LGradaigh/status/1436095950561419280 https://twitter.com/LGradaigh/status/1436095950561419280