3 ms·

It was literally never claimed that it was 97% effective at stopping COVID. The Pfizer vaccine was 97% effective at preventing severe disease after two doses in

It was literally never claimed that it was 97% effective at stopping COVID. The Pfizer vaccine was 97% effective at preventing severe disease after two doses in early 2021. Don't bring conspiracy nonsense into every discussion about healthcare.

bananapear 4y ago
https://twitter.com/albertbourla/status/1377618481923944462 https://twitter.com/albertbourla/status/1377618481923944462
dukeofdoom 4y ago
Here is the claim from pfizer's own press release. "Vaccine effectiveness was at least 97% against symptomatic COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, severe and critical hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the analysis found a vaccine effectiveness of 94% against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. " https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/real-world-evidence-confirms-high-effectiveness-pfizer#:~:text=Vaccine%20effectiveness%20was%20at%20least%2097%25%20against%20symptomatic%20COVID%2D19,SARS%2DCoV%2D2%20infections https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta....
- hedgehog 4y ago
  That's 94%, and it was true vs the original strain immediately after vaccination. Now many people are six months or more past their last shot and the current virus is two years of evolution improved vs the original. Vaccination reduces personal risk significantly but it's not going to control spread by itself.
- TaupeRanger 4y ago
  You just proved yourself wrong? What do you think this says? It literally never claims to be 97% effective at (your words) stopping COVID. That implies that it prevents the infection from spreading and/or causing symptoms, neither of which is part of that statement in the press release.
  - dukeofdoom 4y ago
    To be very specific they took two samples of about 22,000 people each. One vaccinated and one given placebo. Then they counted how many people they caught with covid in each sample. 8 vs 162. Then based on those numbers claimed the 97% effectiveness as stopping infection (people getting sick). Here's a video confirming that this is how they measured efficiency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huFLxbBw9OM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huFLxbBw9OM 8 vs 162 is the people that they confirmed with PCR test to be positive. They did not actually test everyone for covid. They admit that there were other people they suspected of having covid. "Among 3210 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs 1816 in the placebo group." Page 42 of the pfizer data leaks. Hope you see why claiming 97% efficiency to the public was misleading. After a year, and millions of vaccines later, we can clearly say that the study was bullshit. The vaccine did not offer anywhere near the sort of long lasting immunity that approaches 97%. Our prime minster despite having two shots and boosted was sick with covid twice in 4 months. So to cite this study as being accurate is kind of like claiming pigs can fly. Yes I suppose they could. If they jump off a cliff, for a brief second they could.
    - dukeofdoom 4y ago
      95% not 97%
    - TaupeRanger 4y ago
      Again, you are completely wrong and simply spouting vaccine conspiracy nonsense. It is very clear from the study that those "suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases" are those who reported one flu-like symptom but had a NEGATIVE PCR test. A very detailed explanation of why you are wrong to want to include those in the efficacy percentage number can be found here: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/refuting-peter-doshi-s-claims-doubting-trustworthiness-meaningfulness-of-covid-vaccine-results https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/refuting-peter-doshi-.... It is not clear whatsoever that the study was bullshit, and the results speak for themselves. An anecdote about your Prime Minister is meaningless and occurred AFTER this initial study period when the variants had changed the landscape and these numbers were no longer applicable.

bananapear 4y ago

https://twitter.com/albertbourla/status/1377618481923944462 https://twitter.com/albertbourla/status/1377618481923944462

dukeofdoom 4y ago

Here is the claim from pfizer's own press release. "Vaccine effectiveness was at least 97% against symptomatic COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, severe and critical hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the analysis found a vaccine effectiveness of 94% against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. " https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/real-world-evidence-confirms-high-effectiveness-pfizer#:~:text=Vaccine%20effectiveness%20was%20at%20least%2097%25%20against%20symptomatic%20COVID%2D19,SARS%2DCoV%2D2%20infections https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta....

hedgehog 4y ago
That's 94%, and it was true vs the original strain immediately after vaccination. Now many people are six months or more past their last shot and the current virus is two years of evolution improved vs the original. Vaccination reduces personal risk significantly but it's not going to control spread by itself.
TaupeRanger 4y ago
You just proved yourself wrong? What do you think this says? It literally never claims to be 97% effective at (your words) stopping COVID. That implies that it prevents the infection from spreading and/or causing symptoms, neither of which is part of that statement in the press release.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago
  To be very specific they took two samples of about 22,000 people each. One vaccinated and one given placebo. Then they counted how many people they caught with covid in each sample. 8 vs 162. Then based on those numbers claimed the 97% effectiveness as stopping infection (people getting sick). Here's a video confirming that this is how they measured efficiency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huFLxbBw9OM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huFLxbBw9OM 8 vs 162 is the people that they confirmed with PCR test to be positive. They did not actually test everyone for covid. They admit that there were other people they suspected of having covid. "Among 3210 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs 1816 in the placebo group." Page 42 of the pfizer data leaks. Hope you see why claiming 97% efficiency to the public was misleading. After a year, and millions of vaccines later, we can clearly say that the study was bullshit. The vaccine did not offer anywhere near the sort of long lasting immunity that approaches 97%. Our prime minster despite having two shots and boosted was sick with covid twice in 4 months. So to cite this study as being accurate is kind of like claiming pigs can fly. Yes I suppose they could. If they jump off a cliff, for a brief second they could.
  - dukeofdoom 4y ago
    95% not 97%
  - TaupeRanger 4y ago
    Again, you are completely wrong and simply spouting vaccine conspiracy nonsense. It is very clear from the study that those "suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases" are those who reported one flu-like symptom but had a NEGATIVE PCR test. A very detailed explanation of why you are wrong to want to include those in the efficacy percentage number can be found here: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/refuting-peter-doshi-s-claims-doubting-trustworthiness-meaningfulness-of-covid-vaccine-results https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/refuting-peter-doshi-.... It is not clear whatsoever that the study was bullshit, and the results speak for themselves. An anecdote about your Prime Minister is meaningless and occurred AFTER this initial study period when the variants had changed the landscape and these numbers were no longer applicable.