4 ms·

> Somehow there's this idea that the Sars-CoV-2 vaccines need to prevent infection The original announcements from Pfizer et al touted the 90-95% effectiveness

> Somehow there's this idea that the Sars-CoV-2 vaccines need to prevent infection The original announcements from Pfizer et al touted the 90-95% effectiveness of the vaccines against infection (and 95-100% against severe infection). The idea that vaccines prevented most infection was literally part of their testing and marketing from the start. The wild card was Delta & Omicron not complying with those numbers, not that people shared some mass delusion.

nsxwolf 5y ago
I was very enthusiastic about the vaccine and couldn’t wait to get it. I didn’t believe I had any real chance of dying, I just didn’t want to get sick with it and was ecstatic about not having to wear masks. If the vaccine had come out of the gates as something to just prevent death, I would not have been so enthusiastic or motivated.
maxdj 5y ago
None of the phase 3 trials measured protection against infection, and none of the press releases mention infection, see Pfizer’s original results: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201118005595/en/ https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201118005595/en/ I think confusion comes from the use of “COVID-19” which is not a virus or infection specifically but a disease caused by sars-ncov2 infection. If you have an asymptomaic infection, you don’t have COVID-19.
- defaultname 5y ago
  The trials would have had to have tested every participant daily to qualify protection against infection. However it was most certainly presumed, and the entire narrative around the vaccine push was achieving herd immunity: when enough people were unlikely to shed viruses in any likely transmissive volume because of achieved immunity (whether via vaccine or previous infection), transmission would trickle to an almost halt and life would return to normal. This wouldn't require 100% coverage, nor a 100% effective vaccine (no vaccine has ever been 100% effective, or so-called "sterilizing") to accomplish. There is a bit of rewriting now that is happening that is a bit disturbing and seems like gaslighting. A notion that the vaccine never sought to prevent infection (and thus viral transmission). That is obviously and easily proven as completely wrong. But then protection faded maybe quicker than expected, and variants broke expectations and some protections. It sucks, but it's where we're at. The vaccines still have the enormous benefit of reducing case severity, but they certainly did fail in some of the goals. Sidenote: If you are infected and thus replicating SARS-CoV-2 viruses, you have COVID-19 even if entirely asymptomatic. As with the prior points, this is trivial to verify. The "COVID-19 is only severe cases" claim is a part of the prior bit of gaslighting where we're redefining everything to somehow make early proclamations (e.g. "prevents covid-19") fit the unfortunate situation today. Cheers!
- freeflight 5y ago
  > I think confusion comes from the use of “COVID-19” which is not a virus or infection specifically but a disease caused by sars-ncov2 infection. It's fascinating how two years into this pandemic this is still such a huge communication issue, quite reminiscent of AIDS and HIV. I wonder how much of that is impacting the reported numbers, in Germany it sure enough did; Hospitals were reporting every patient that tested positive as COVID-19 patient, even when they where in the hospital for a completely different reason and had no disease outbreak.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Izkata 5y ago
    It's the same in the US, 40% of "covid hospitalizations" were hospitalized for other reasons and then tested positive. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1480679058488836097 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1480679058488836097 Also note at the end he says "asymptomatic covid", which gets right back to the confusion between sars-cov-2 and covid-19.
nradov 5y ago
That is simply false. Here is the original press release from Pfizer when they received an FDA emergency use authorization. They never claimed any specific level of effectiveness against infection. The actual study end points were varying degrees of symptomatic infection. And it certainly does work for that. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-celebrate-historic-first-authorization 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 Unfortunately, some politicians then started making wild claims about infection prevention that weren't backed by actual science.

nsxwolf 5y ago

I was very enthusiastic about the vaccine and couldn’t wait to get it. I didn’t believe I had any real chance of dying, I just didn’t want to get sick with it and was ecstatic about not having to wear masks. If the vaccine had come out of the gates as something to just prevent death, I would not have been so enthusiastic or motivated.

maxdj 5y ago

None of the phase 3 trials measured protection against infection, and none of the press releases mention infection, see Pfizer’s original results: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201118005595/en/ https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201118005595/en/ I think confusion comes from the use of “COVID-19” which is not a virus or infection specifically but a disease caused by sars-ncov2 infection. If you have an asymptomaic infection, you don’t have COVID-19.

defaultname 5y ago
The trials would have had to have tested every participant daily to qualify protection against infection. However it was most certainly presumed, and the entire narrative around the vaccine push was achieving herd immunity: when enough people were unlikely to shed viruses in any likely transmissive volume because of achieved immunity (whether via vaccine or previous infection), transmission would trickle to an almost halt and life would return to normal. This wouldn't require 100% coverage, nor a 100% effective vaccine (no vaccine has ever been 100% effective, or so-called "sterilizing") to accomplish. There is a bit of rewriting now that is happening that is a bit disturbing and seems like gaslighting. A notion that the vaccine never sought to prevent infection (and thus viral transmission). That is obviously and easily proven as completely wrong. But then protection faded maybe quicker than expected, and variants broke expectations and some protections. It sucks, but it's where we're at. The vaccines still have the enormous benefit of reducing case severity, but they certainly did fail in some of the goals. Sidenote: If you are infected and thus replicating SARS-CoV-2 viruses, you have COVID-19 even if entirely asymptomatic. As with the prior points, this is trivial to verify. The "COVID-19 is only severe cases" claim is a part of the prior bit of gaslighting where we're redefining everything to somehow make early proclamations (e.g. "prevents covid-19") fit the unfortunate situation today. Cheers!
freeflight 5y ago
> I think confusion comes from the use of “COVID-19” which is not a virus or infection specifically but a disease caused by sars-ncov2 infection. It's fascinating how two years into this pandemic this is still such a huge communication issue, quite reminiscent of AIDS and HIV. I wonder how much of that is impacting the reported numbers, in Germany it sure enough did; Hospitals were reporting every patient that tested positive as COVID-19 patient, even when they where in the hospital for a completely different reason and had no disease outbreak.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Izkata 5y ago
  It's the same in the US, 40% of "covid hospitalizations" were hospitalized for other reasons and then tested positive. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1480679058488836097 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1480679058488836097 Also note at the end he says "asymptomatic covid", which gets right back to the confusion between sars-cov-2 and covid-19.

nradov 5y ago

That is simply false. Here is the original press release from Pfizer when they received an FDA emergency use authorization. They never claimed any specific level of effectiveness against infection. The actual study end points were varying degrees of symptomatic infection. And it certainly does work for that. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-celebrate-historic-first-authorization 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 Unfortunately, some politicians then started making wild claims about infection prevention that weren't backed by actual science.