3 ms·

The Salk polio vaccine was about 60-70% effective and is certainly a vaccine. Please don’t confuse your misunderstanding of what a vaccine is with an attempt to

The Salk polio vaccine was about 60-70% effective and is certainly a vaccine. Please don’t confuse your misunderstanding of what a vaccine is with an attempt to change the definition.

parkingrift 5y ago
We're down to 30-40% protection against infection for two dose Pfizer-BioNTech. Is it a vaccine if you need a booster every 6 months the vaccine only protects against severe infection? More important than petty arguments is how this virus was sold to the public. Pfizer-BioNTech suggested 95-100% efficacy after 30 days. Now we're gaslighting people into saying protecting against severe infection was always the goal. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-biontech-announce-positive-topline-results-pivotal https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- _djo_ 5y ago
  Nope. You’re mixing numbers. Both the trials and independent national studies found vaccines like the Pfizer-BioNTech one to be about 95% effectiveness against severe disease and hospitalisation, not infection. It was never claimed that they’d completely prevent infection. New variants like Beta, Delta, and Omicron have varying levels of escape from both vaccination and prior infection, which means effectiveness at preventing severe disease or hospitalisation against those variants has decreased, requiring a booster. Nor is this unusual, as the flu vaccine also needs to be constantly adjusted to take new variants into account.
  - egg1 5y ago
    No, the data from the first clinical trials for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines showed 95% efficacy against symptomatic infection. You had Fauci, Birx and countless other talking heads in the media implying or stating outright that the vaccines conferred sterilizing immunity. Of course, we know now that the variants have evolved some degree of immune escape, that the vaccines no longer prevent infection while still being effective against severe disease, but that's not what the "experts" originally claimed. It's disappointing to see the Hacker News crowd buying into the gaslighting that vaccines are only ever meant to prevent hospitalization. That was not the scientific consensus 2 years ago, and still isn't.
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      The scientific consensus, as summarised in this Nature article announcing the news, seems pretty clear on what was being looked at and that the trials focused on severe disease outcomes. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8
      - parkingrift 5y ago
        Nope. The Nature article was written well before the actual results and studies were released. The studies are unequivocally clear that the primary goal of the studies (at that time) were to measure prevention against symptomatic infection. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
        _djo_ 5y ago
        I don't understand what you're trying to claim, are you trying to say that the trial results were falsified? Because there's no other way your insistence on this makes sense. That journal article accurately reports on the findings of the Phase III trial, which did show spectacular success against the wild type. In simple terms, had SARS-CoV-2 not mutated, and we were still dealing with the original wild type, then this pandemic would have been over months ago. They were that all-round effective. The emergence of variants is what has caused the pandemic to continue, as many scientists warned. As I showed with the Nature article, general scientific consensus was optimistic but cautious and warned about waning immunity and variants. You seem to think this is all some kind of gotcha, when it's really about adapting to a changing situation and an evasive virus.
  - parkingrift 5y ago
    >Nope. You’re mixing numbers. Both the trials and independent national studies found vaccines like the Pfizer-BioNTech one to be about 95% effectiveness against severe disease and hospitalisation, not infection. Nope. Please click and read either of the links I sent. Here, I'll quote them for you. >The trial enrolled 2,260 adolescents 12 to 15 years of age in the United States. In the trial, 18 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group (n=1,129) versus none in the vaccinated group (n=1,131). >A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. >The first primary end point was the efficacy of BNT162b2 against confirmed Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose in participants who had been without serologic or virologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 7 days after the second dose; the second primary end point was efficacy in participants with and participants without evidence of prior infection. Confirmed Covid-19 was defined according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria as the presence of at least one of the following symptoms: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhea, or vomiting, combined with a respiratory specimen obtained during the symptomatic period or within 4 days before or after it that was positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid amplification–based testing, either at the central laboratory or at a local testing facility (using a protocol-defined acceptable test). >Major secondary end points included the efficacy of BNT162b2 against severe Covid-19. Severe Covid-19 is defined by the FDA as confirmed Covid-19 with one of the following additional features: clinical signs at rest that are indicative of severe systemic illness; respiratory failure; evidence of shock; significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death. Details are provided in the protocol. Primary goal, symptomatic infection. Secondary goal, severe infection. Please stop the gaslighting.
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      That accurately reflected the results of the trial, which reflected performance against the original wild type. Do you dispute them? However, scientific consensus was that we may not see such great results in the real world, especially if variants emerged. That was all highlighted in the Nature article I posted, which came out at the same time. I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand. Mutations always change the game, but the commentary (and hope) was that the vaccines would continue protecting against severe disease, hospitalisation and death even with new mutations. That has broadly been the case.

The Salk polio vaccine was about 60-70% effective and is certainly a vaccine. Please don’t confuse your misunderstanding of what a vaccine is with an attempt to change the definition.

parkingrift 5y ago

We're down to 30-40% protection against infection for two dose Pfizer-BioNTech. Is it a vaccine if you need a booster every 6 months the vaccine only protects against severe infection? More important than petty arguments is how this virus was sold to the public. Pfizer-BioNTech suggested 95-100% efficacy after 30 days. Now we're gaslighting people into saying protecting against severe infection was always the goal. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-biontech-announce-positive-topline-results-pivotal https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
_djo_ 5y ago
Nope. You’re mixing numbers. Both the trials and independent national studies found vaccines like the Pfizer-BioNTech one to be about 95% effectiveness against severe disease and hospitalisation, not infection. It was never claimed that they’d completely prevent infection. New variants like Beta, Delta, and Omicron have varying levels of escape from both vaccination and prior infection, which means effectiveness at preventing severe disease or hospitalisation against those variants has decreased, requiring a booster. Nor is this unusual, as the flu vaccine also needs to be constantly adjusted to take new variants into account.
- egg1 5y ago
  No, the data from the first clinical trials for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines showed 95% efficacy against symptomatic infection. You had Fauci, Birx and countless other talking heads in the media implying or stating outright that the vaccines conferred sterilizing immunity. Of course, we know now that the variants have evolved some degree of immune escape, that the vaccines no longer prevent infection while still being effective against severe disease, but that's not what the "experts" originally claimed. It's disappointing to see the Hacker News crowd buying into the gaslighting that vaccines are only ever meant to prevent hospitalization. That was not the scientific consensus 2 years ago, and still isn't.
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    The scientific consensus, as summarised in this Nature article announcing the news, seems pretty clear on what was being looked at and that the trials focused on severe disease outcomes. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8
    - parkingrift 5y ago
      Nope. The Nature article was written well before the actual results and studies were released. The studies are unequivocally clear that the primary goal of the studies (at that time) were to measure prevention against symptomatic infection. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
      - _djo_ 5y ago
        I don't understand what you're trying to claim, are you trying to say that the trial results were falsified? Because there's no other way your insistence on this makes sense. That journal article accurately reports on the findings of the Phase III trial, which did show spectacular success against the wild type. In simple terms, had SARS-CoV-2 not mutated, and we were still dealing with the original wild type, then this pandemic would have been over months ago. They were that all-round effective. The emergence of variants is what has caused the pandemic to continue, as many scientists warned. As I showed with the Nature article, general scientific consensus was optimistic but cautious and warned about waning immunity and variants. You seem to think this is all some kind of gotcha, when it's really about adapting to a changing situation and an evasive virus.
- parkingrift 5y ago
  >Nope. You’re mixing numbers. Both the trials and independent national studies found vaccines like the Pfizer-BioNTech one to be about 95% effectiveness against severe disease and hospitalisation, not infection. Nope. Please click and read either of the links I sent. Here, I'll quote them for you. >The trial enrolled 2,260 adolescents 12 to 15 years of age in the United States. In the trial, 18 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group (n=1,129) versus none in the vaccinated group (n=1,131). >A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. >The first primary end point was the efficacy of BNT162b2 against confirmed Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose in participants who had been without serologic or virologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 7 days after the second dose; the second primary end point was efficacy in participants with and participants without evidence of prior infection. Confirmed Covid-19 was defined according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria as the presence of at least one of the following symptoms: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhea, or vomiting, combined with a respiratory specimen obtained during the symptomatic period or within 4 days before or after it that was positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid amplification–based testing, either at the central laboratory or at a local testing facility (using a protocol-defined acceptable test). >Major secondary end points included the efficacy of BNT162b2 against severe Covid-19. Severe Covid-19 is defined by the FDA as confirmed Covid-19 with one of the following additional features: clinical signs at rest that are indicative of severe systemic illness; respiratory failure; evidence of shock; significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death. Details are provided in the protocol. Primary goal, symptomatic infection. Secondary goal, severe infection. Please stop the gaslighting.
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    That accurately reflected the results of the trial, which reflected performance against the original wild type. Do you dispute them? However, scientific consensus was that we may not see such great results in the real world, especially if variants emerged. That was all highlighted in the Nature article I posted, which came out at the same time. I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand. Mutations always change the game, but the commentary (and hope) was that the vaccines would continue protecting against severe disease, hospitalisation and death even with new mutations. That has broadly been the case.