4 ms·

>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

>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.
- parkingrift 5y ago
  >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. They were not released at the same time. Check the dates. Your Nature article was written almost two months before the actual studies were released. It was based on preliminary evidence. It's not a rebuttal to the actual studies. The actual studies are a rebuttal to the Nature article. >I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand Likewise. Why do you insist on lying and perpetuating lies?
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    I could bring up dozens of other examples of prominent scientists and public health professionals saying the same thing after the final Phase III results were published, but frankly I have to wonder if you’re worth the time it would take to collate them given the way you keep using pejorative terms like ‘gaslight’ and ‘lie’ in this discussion. You’re starting from a predefined agenda and seeking evidence to fit, which is no way to go about things.

_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.

parkingrift 5y ago
>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. They were not released at the same time. Check the dates. Your Nature article was written almost two months before the actual studies were released. It was based on preliminary evidence. It's not a rebuttal to the actual studies. The actual studies are a rebuttal to the Nature article. >I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand Likewise. Why do you insist on lying and perpetuating lies?
- _djo_ 5y ago
  I could bring up dozens of other examples of prominent scientists and public health professionals saying the same thing after the final Phase III results were published, but frankly I have to wonder if you’re worth the time it would take to collate them given the way you keep using pejorative terms like ‘gaslight’ and ‘lie’ in this discussion. You’re starting from a predefined agenda and seeking evidence to fit, which is no way to go about things.