6 ms·

The WHO agrees with the author: Does it prevent infection and transmission? There is currently no substantive data available related to impact of Pfizer

by Capira 5y ago

The WHO agrees with the author: Does it prevent infection and transmission? There is currently no substantive data available related to impact of Pfizer BioNTech vaccine on transmission or viral shedding. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-can-take-the-pfizer-biontech-covid-19--vaccine https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-can...

modriano 5y ago
Actually, there is. The new-daily-cases-per-capita rate for unvaccinated people is at least 6x the rate of vaccinated people, per the most recent data in this NYT analysis [0]. And the reduction was observed for Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J vaccines. [0] Who Had Covid-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Cases? https://nyti.ms/3nFvITV https://nyti.ms/3nFvITV
- fileeditview 5y ago
  The quote from parent was about transmission.
  - modriano 5y ago
    As every new case is a result of transmission, a difference in the per-capita rate of new cases between vaccinated and unvaccinated people shows an identical difference in the rate of transmission.
- native_samples 5y ago
  That's the US data which is hopelessly corrupted by politics; the CDC simply hasn't been reporting honest statistics about vaccines from the start. In the UK where the health authorities break down by age and vaxx status with what seems to be reasonably accurate reporting, the vaccinated per capita rate is ~2x the unvaccinated rate and nobody knows why.
  - pw201 5y ago
    This is incorrect: we don't know the rates, because we don't know the denominators. Published figures use estimated denominators: "because the proportion of unvaccinated people is small and the NIMS population estimates are high, it makes the unvaccinated population appear significantly larger than it is. As a consequence, the Covid case rate per 100,000 unvaccinated people, when calculated using this figure, is suppressed. Just being out by 1 or 2 per cent could change the apparent population of unvaccinated people by 30 per cent." (from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cfaadc98-35ab-11ec-8ef4-8e6db1a4b82a?shareToken=20fd208002f5b4678d462587fde63f26 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cfaadc98-35ab-11ec-8ef4-8... )
KarlKemp 5y ago
Immediately before that: The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy of 95% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. And, of course, it’s months old. Let me ask you: you know perfectly well that you are misrepresenting this report. I can see how that might work to convince the gullible. But how have you not noticed how entirely corrupt your undertaking is, and changed your opinion? Why aren’t the two sides of your brain looking at each other, going “are we the baddies?” edit: nevermind, just noticed it’s a cryptobro. The two halves are busy scamming each other with NFTs
- gruez 5y ago
  >Immediately before that: The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy of 95% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. I'm not sure how that contradicts the parent post? You could be protected from hospitalization/symptoms, but still be transmitting it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Capira 5y ago
  Argumentum ad hominem usually implies an irrational opinion or manipulative rhetoric.
- dang 5y ago
  Personal attacks are not allowed here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

by Capira 5y ago

modriano 5y ago

Actually, there is. The new-daily-cases-per-capita rate for unvaccinated people is at least 6x the rate of vaccinated people, per the most recent data in this NYT analysis [0]. And the reduction was observed for Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J vaccines. [0] Who Had Covid-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Cases? https://nyti.ms/3nFvITV https://nyti.ms/3nFvITV

fileeditview 5y ago
The quote from parent was about transmission.
- modriano 5y ago
  As every new case is a result of transmission, a difference in the per-capita rate of new cases between vaccinated and unvaccinated people shows an identical difference in the rate of transmission.
native_samples 5y ago
That's the US data which is hopelessly corrupted by politics; the CDC simply hasn't been reporting honest statistics about vaccines from the start. In the UK where the health authorities break down by age and vaxx status with what seems to be reasonably accurate reporting, the vaccinated per capita rate is ~2x the unvaccinated rate and nobody knows why.
- pw201 5y ago
  This is incorrect: we don't know the rates, because we don't know the denominators. Published figures use estimated denominators: "because the proportion of unvaccinated people is small and the NIMS population estimates are high, it makes the unvaccinated population appear significantly larger than it is. As a consequence, the Covid case rate per 100,000 unvaccinated people, when calculated using this figure, is suppressed. Just being out by 1 or 2 per cent could change the apparent population of unvaccinated people by 30 per cent." (from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cfaadc98-35ab-11ec-8ef4-8e6db1a4b82a?shareToken=20fd208002f5b4678d462587fde63f26 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cfaadc98-35ab-11ec-8ef4-8... )

KarlKemp 5y ago

Immediately before that: The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy of 95% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. And, of course, it’s months old. Let me ask you: you know perfectly well that you are misrepresenting this report. I can see how that might work to convince the gullible. But how have you not noticed how entirely corrupt your undertaking is, and changed your opinion? Why aren’t the two sides of your brain looking at each other, going “are we the baddies?” edit: nevermind, just noticed it’s a cryptobro. The two halves are busy scamming each other with NFTs

gruez 5y ago
>Immediately before that: The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy of 95% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. I'm not sure how that contradicts the parent post? You could be protected from hospitalization/symptoms, but still be transmitting it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Capira 5y ago
Argumentum ad hominem usually implies an irrational opinion or manipulative rhetoric.
dang 5y ago
Personal attacks are not allowed here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.