3 ms·

Does anyone know if it's standard or best practice for them to know who involved in these studies if they also have had COVID in the past? I'm curious how much

by loceng 5y ago

Does anyone know if it's standard or best practice for them to know who involved in these studies if they also have had COVID in the past? I'm curious how much of the benefit may be from the vaccines vs. how much may be from catching COVID/have antibodies from COVID itself. If they're not measuring this to differentiate, then why not?

n8henrie 5y ago
Yes they do a pretty good job here, at least in my limited experience. My wife and I are in the Pfizer study. We had a questionnaire, a swab, and blood draws for antibody levels on enrolling, and have had multiple sets of bloodwork since then to watch our response. We have a weekly symptom check-in, and for any suspicious symptoms are directed to get a COVID test and notify them so they can follow up on results. In case we are unable to go get a test, we were all provided with a test kit for home use (which gets sent back to them).
- loceng 5y ago
  "... and for any suspicious symptoms are directed to get a COVID test and notify them so they can follow up on results" So the answer is no then, they're not testing 100% of people. I don't know why you'd equate this as "a pretty good job" - it's not scientifically rigorous at all; much like how myocarditis signal in young men/boys only showed up between 1:3000 and 1:5000 but the most recent studies of even younger children only included 2000 participants, only 1200 of which receive the vaccine - so nowhere near enough participants included to catch important signals; and that's just for the "adverse" event of myocarditis. And testing for antibodies produced by the vaccines and/or by natural COVID infection? I'd presume there's be a way antibody markers that can be checked for both - but something I'm also unsure of.
  - n8henrie 5y ago
    > So the answer is no then, they're not testing 100% of people. The answer to what? Your question was: " Does anyone know if it's standard or best practice for them to know who involved in these studies if they also have had COVID in the past?". I think I answered this in the affirmative: "We had a questionnaire, a swab, and blood draws for antibody levels on enrolling." What else would you be looking for, to answer your own question in the affirmative? > So the answer is no then, they're not testing 100% of people. 100% of enrollees are getting tested at enrollment as described above, which makes it seem like they're doing a "pretty good job" of determining if they've had COVID in the past. Aside from questionnaires, a PCR swab, and antibody testing, what else would you ask for? > it's not scientifically rigorous at all What isn't? What part of the approach are you taking issue with, and what would be a better approach? > And testing for antibodies produced by the vaccines and/or by natural COVID infection? I'm also unsure, but I would think that clinically evident disease would seem like a more important primary outcome, and having a weekly check-in for any suspicious symptoms that week, equipping participants with the ability to get a test (and instructing them to do so) should they develop symptoms still seems like a "pretty good job" IMO.
lern_too_spel 5y ago
It's a randomized trial. People in the trial having natural immunity would reduce the measured treatment effect, not increase it.

by loceng 5y ago

n8henrie 5y ago

Yes they do a pretty good job here, at least in my limited experience. My wife and I are in the Pfizer study. We had a questionnaire, a swab, and blood draws for antibody levels on enrolling, and have had multiple sets of bloodwork since then to watch our response. We have a weekly symptom check-in, and for any suspicious symptoms are directed to get a COVID test and notify them so they can follow up on results. In case we are unable to go get a test, we were all provided with a test kit for home use (which gets sent back to them).

loceng 5y ago
"... and for any suspicious symptoms are directed to get a COVID test and notify them so they can follow up on results" So the answer is no then, they're not testing 100% of people. I don't know why you'd equate this as "a pretty good job" - it's not scientifically rigorous at all; much like how myocarditis signal in young men/boys only showed up between 1:3000 and 1:5000 but the most recent studies of even younger children only included 2000 participants, only 1200 of which receive the vaccine - so nowhere near enough participants included to catch important signals; and that's just for the "adverse" event of myocarditis. And testing for antibodies produced by the vaccines and/or by natural COVID infection? I'd presume there's be a way antibody markers that can be checked for both - but something I'm also unsure of.
- n8henrie 5y ago
  > So the answer is no then, they're not testing 100% of people. The answer to what? Your question was: " Does anyone know if it's standard or best practice for them to know who involved in these studies if they also have had COVID in the past?". I think I answered this in the affirmative: "We had a questionnaire, a swab, and blood draws for antibody levels on enrolling." What else would you be looking for, to answer your own question in the affirmative? > So the answer is no then, they're not testing 100% of people. 100% of enrollees are getting tested at enrollment as described above, which makes it seem like they're doing a "pretty good job" of determining if they've had COVID in the past. Aside from questionnaires, a PCR swab, and antibody testing, what else would you ask for? > it's not scientifically rigorous at all What isn't? What part of the approach are you taking issue with, and what would be a better approach? > And testing for antibodies produced by the vaccines and/or by natural COVID infection? I'm also unsure, but I would think that clinically evident disease would seem like a more important primary outcome, and having a weekly check-in for any suspicious symptoms that week, equipping participants with the ability to get a test (and instructing them to do so) should they develop symptoms still seems like a "pretty good job" IMO.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

It's a randomized trial. People in the trial having natural immunity would reduce the measured treatment effect, not increase it.