3 ms·

Speaking of protection (vaccine effectiveness against infection) durability, I have to admit there is a certain level of disappointment seeing charts like Figur

Speaking of protection (vaccine effectiveness against infection) durability, I have to admit there is a certain level of disappointment seeing charts like Figure 1 in a US veteran study, which flat out contradicts the J&J claims (VEaI 3%) and partly invalidates the Pfizer claims (VEaI 56%). Or a Qatar study. Or a Sweden study. There is also the official reaction. Aug 18, 2021: "CDC Director Says Coronavirus Vaccines Less Effective For Delta But Still Prevent Severe Infection". Possible all of these studies are flawed. And perhaps I'm accidentally misquoting Rachel Walensky. Given that the original trials were closed by vaccinating the control arm of the studies, not even sure where to look for credible longterm tracking of VE against infection data. On the other hand, possibly the manufacturer original studies were flawed. Or the virus evolved, Delta, duh. These conversations are difficult to carry partly because we are supposed to take the original studies, created with (acceptable) conflict of interest as gold standard, and summarily dismiss any independent verification thereof. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.13.21264966v1.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.13.21264966v... https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/08/18/cdc-director-says-coronavirus-vaccines-less-effective-for-delta-but-still-prevent-severe-infection https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/08/18/cdc-d...

angelzen 5y ago
PS. One more recent VE study picked from the comments, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7/tables/3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7/tables/3 UK, VE vs delta over 90 days days VEaPCRI VEaSI after 2nd dose 14 85% 93% 30 83% 92% 60 80% 86% 90 75% 78% The trend makes me fairly intrigued to see the follow up at 180, 270 etc. days after 2nd dose.
- pbak 5y ago
  Watch this till the end : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZMtSPX3iE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZMtSPX3iE
  - angelzen 5y ago
    To be fair, before we get carried away, VE against severe infection persists much better given the limited data we have and considering the in-the-field hospitalization & death rates. For adults, especially older, the vaccine is a big net positive.
fsh 5y ago
I don't get what point you are trying to make. Yes, the vaccine efficacy drops over time. This is expected since the antibody levels in the blood drop over time. The manufacturers have pointed out from the beginning that this drop and the potential need for a third shot have to be determined from real-world data, as was done in many studies. Now the picture seems to be that vaccine effectiveness does indeed drop over time, but protection against severe disease remains pretty strong, with the possible exception of old people who tend to have a weak immune response. Most governments have reacted by recommending third shots to this group in order to further improve the protection. I really can't see any controversy here. This is precisely the procedure one expects when a new vaccine is introduced. It is also worth pointing out, that even without boosters the vaccines vastly outperform any medication tested against COVID so far. And they do that much cheaper and with lower side effects.
- angelzen 5y ago
  "Yes, the vaccine efficacy drops over time." That's it. Pfizer made their core of their argument to FDA for 5-11 age group based on VE against infection numbers that we agree do not hold over time. They should take their time to conduct a real study and demonstrate real clinical benefits. There is no rush.

angelzen 5y ago

PS. One more recent VE study picked from the comments, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7/tables/3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7/tables/3 UK, VE vs delta over 90 days days VEaPCRI VEaSI after 2nd dose 14 85% 93% 30 83% 92% 60 80% 86% 90 75% 78% The trend makes me fairly intrigued to see the follow up at 180, 270 etc. days after 2nd dose.

pbak 5y ago
Watch this till the end : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZMtSPX3iE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZMtSPX3iE
- angelzen 5y ago
  To be fair, before we get carried away, VE against severe infection persists much better given the limited data we have and considering the in-the-field hospitalization & death rates. For adults, especially older, the vaccine is a big net positive.

fsh 5y ago

I don't get what point you are trying to make. Yes, the vaccine efficacy drops over time. This is expected since the antibody levels in the blood drop over time. The manufacturers have pointed out from the beginning that this drop and the potential need for a third shot have to be determined from real-world data, as was done in many studies. Now the picture seems to be that vaccine effectiveness does indeed drop over time, but protection against severe disease remains pretty strong, with the possible exception of old people who tend to have a weak immune response. Most governments have reacted by recommending third shots to this group in order to further improve the protection. I really can't see any controversy here. This is precisely the procedure one expects when a new vaccine is introduced. It is also worth pointing out, that even without boosters the vaccines vastly outperform any medication tested against COVID so far. And they do that much cheaper and with lower side effects.

angelzen 5y ago
"Yes, the vaccine efficacy drops over time." That's it. Pfizer made their core of their argument to FDA for 5-11 age group based on VE against infection numbers that we agree do not hold over time. They should take their time to conduct a real study and demonstrate real clinical benefits. There is no rush.