4 ms·

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

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.
  - dukeofdoom 4y ago
    Since you are still claiming that it was 95% effective. Can you give a time estimate for how long that efficiency lasted? This study concludes " Primary immunization with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine provided limited protection against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron variant. " https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119451#:~:text=Vaccine%20Effectiveness%2C%20Omicron%20Variant&text=Among%20those%20who%20had%20received,after%2025%20or%20more%20weeks https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119451#:~:text=.... Why are they wrong? I read the article you cited. Here's the problem as I see with it. "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" The pfizer results are dependent on the accuracy of the PCR test. "The false-negative rate for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is highly variable: highest within the first 5 days after exposure (up to 67%), and lowest on day 8 after exposure (21%)." https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/05/18/13/42/variation-in-false-negative-rate-of-reverse https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/... 1. Even if the PCR test FNR was just 2% then some covid positive people were missed that need to be accounted for. 1594 * 0.02 = 31 were false negative in the vaccinated group 1816 * 0.02 = 36 were false negative in the unvaccinated group. 8 + 31 = 41 162 + 36 = 198 41 / 198 = 20% => Then the pfizer vaccine efficiency falls to 80 If the PCR test FNR was 10% Then we need to add 159 and 181 respectively 8 + 159 = 167 162 + 181 = 343 167/343 = 48%. Efficiency falls to 52% Real world FNR for a PCR test is estimated to be between 2-30%, but can be much higher depending on which day you get tested. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/false-negative-how-long-does-it-take-coronavirus-become-detectable-pcr https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/false-negative-how-long-do... https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/05/18/13/42/variation-in-false-negative-rate-of-reverse https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/... 2. PCR tests do not show previous infection. Meaning that Pfizer PCR testing would miss all those people that had "flu-like symptoms" had covid, and recovered prior to getting tested. Did the pfizer study accounts for such likely scenarios? Finally, why were there so many people with "Flu-like symptoms" in the pfizer study yet they did not have covid or the flu? Since we know that flu infections were at record lows during the last two years. Any explanation for this?

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.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago
  Since you are still claiming that it was 95% effective. Can you give a time estimate for how long that efficiency lasted? This study concludes " Primary immunization with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine provided limited protection against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron variant. " https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119451#:~:text=Vaccine%20Effectiveness%2C%20Omicron%20Variant&text=Among%20those%20who%20had%20received,after%2025%20or%20more%20weeks https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119451#:~:text=.... Why are they wrong? I read the article you cited. Here's the problem as I see with it. "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" The pfizer results are dependent on the accuracy of the PCR test. "The false-negative rate for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is highly variable: highest within the first 5 days after exposure (up to 67%), and lowest on day 8 after exposure (21%)." https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/05/18/13/42/variation-in-false-negative-rate-of-reverse https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/... 1. Even if the PCR test FNR was just 2% then some covid positive people were missed that need to be accounted for. 1594 * 0.02 = 31 were false negative in the vaccinated group 1816 * 0.02 = 36 were false negative in the unvaccinated group. 8 + 31 = 41 162 + 36 = 198 41 / 198 = 20% => Then the pfizer vaccine efficiency falls to 80 If the PCR test FNR was 10% Then we need to add 159 and 181 respectively 8 + 159 = 167 162 + 181 = 343 167/343 = 48%. Efficiency falls to 52% Real world FNR for a PCR test is estimated to be between 2-30%, but can be much higher depending on which day you get tested. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/false-negative-how-long-does-it-take-coronavirus-become-detectable-pcr https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/false-negative-how-long-do... https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/05/18/13/42/variation-in-false-negative-rate-of-reverse https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/... 2. PCR tests do not show previous infection. Meaning that Pfizer PCR testing would miss all those people that had "flu-like symptoms" had covid, and recovered prior to getting tested. Did the pfizer study accounts for such likely scenarios? Finally, why were there so many people with "Flu-like symptoms" in the pfizer study yet they did not have covid or the flu? Since we know that flu infections were at record lows during the last two years. Any explanation for this?