3 ms·

The criteria for the original license were the reduction in deaths and disease. Transmission wasn't even tested in the original phase III trials. The vaccines a

The criteria for the original license were the reduction in deaths and disease. Transmission wasn't even tested in the original phase III trials. The vaccines achieved their primary purpose, they prevented death and severe disease. COVID was a major threat to a significant part of the population. The vaccines were effective and reduced the threat to those people enormously. It would have been very nice and useful to stop transmission and achieve herd immunity. But even without that the vaccines were a huge win and saved a lot of lives.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 3y ago
Moderna seems to have moved, or removed, their initial testing results but you can still find an archive here. [1] The pharmaceutical industry was initially claiming that vaccination would completely prevent infection, as it typically does, let alone spread: "There were 11 COVID‑19 cases in the Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group, with a vaccine efficacy of 94.1% (95% confidence interval of 89.3% to 96.8%)." It's easy to create false memories because the politicians and pharma industry simultaneously swapped the narrative to stopping hospitalization and death once it became completely clear the vaccines were not stopping infection, but that is not what their initial purpose was. [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210202223626/https://www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua/providers/clinical-trial-data https://web.archive.org/web/20210202223626/https://www.moder...
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Your quote: "Some of the vaccine group still got infected." Your summary: "They claimed vaccination would completely prevent infection." Perhaps you just can't read?
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    The efficacy rate was not being measured based on death/sickness, but on any infection at all. It was supposed to be 94.1% effective in terms of completely preventing infection.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Again, I think you're having trouble reading. From your link: > The median length of follow up for efficacy for participants in the study was 9 weeks post Dose 2. There were 11 COVID‑19 cases in the Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group, with a vaccine efficacy of 94.1% (95% confidence interval of 89.3% to 96.8%). > Cases of COVID‑19, starting 14 days after Dose 2, were defined as symptomatic COVID‑19 requiring positive RT-PCR result and at least two systemic symptoms or one respiratory symptom. A SARS-CoV-2 infection and a COVID-19 case aren't the same thing, for the same reason a HIV infection is not the same as having AIDS. The 94.1% number comes from counts of actual sickness, despite your assertions to the contrary.
      - somenameforme 3y ago
        Feel free to change the above to claim they stated it would create a negative PCR test or a PCR test with less than 1 one respiratory symptom or 2 systemic symptoms. It does not meaningfully change the issue whatsoever. The asterisk by infection went, without skipping a beat, from a 'PCR test and symptoms' to 'hospitalization/death.' These are very different things.
- fabian2k 3y ago
  The virus the vaccine was first tested is quite different than the version we faced later. The virus is not a static target, but a quickly evolving one. And the later variants were far, far more contagious than the initial one.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

somenameforme 3y ago

Moderna seems to have moved, or removed, their initial testing results but you can still find an archive here. [1] The pharmaceutical industry was initially claiming that vaccination would completely prevent infection, as it typically does, let alone spread: "There were 11 COVID‑19 cases in the Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group, with a vaccine efficacy of 94.1% (95% confidence interval of 89.3% to 96.8%)." It's easy to create false memories because the politicians and pharma industry simultaneously swapped the narrative to stopping hospitalization and death once it became completely clear the vaccines were not stopping infection, but that is not what their initial purpose was. [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210202223626/https://www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua/providers/clinical-trial-data https://web.archive.org/web/20210202223626/https://www.moder...

ceejayoz 3y ago
Your quote: "Some of the vaccine group still got infected." Your summary: "They claimed vaccination would completely prevent infection." Perhaps you just can't read?
- somenameforme 3y ago
  The efficacy rate was not being measured based on death/sickness, but on any infection at all. It was supposed to be 94.1% effective in terms of completely preventing infection.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Again, I think you're having trouble reading. From your link: > The median length of follow up for efficacy for participants in the study was 9 weeks post Dose 2. There were 11 COVID‑19 cases in the Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine group and 185 cases in the placebo group, with a vaccine efficacy of 94.1% (95% confidence interval of 89.3% to 96.8%). > Cases of COVID‑19, starting 14 days after Dose 2, were defined as symptomatic COVID‑19 requiring positive RT-PCR result and at least two systemic symptoms or one respiratory symptom. A SARS-CoV-2 infection and a COVID-19 case aren't the same thing, for the same reason a HIV infection is not the same as having AIDS. The 94.1% number comes from counts of actual sickness, despite your assertions to the contrary.
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      Feel free to change the above to claim they stated it would create a negative PCR test or a PCR test with less than 1 one respiratory symptom or 2 systemic symptoms. It does not meaningfully change the issue whatsoever. The asterisk by infection went, without skipping a beat, from a 'PCR test and symptoms' to 'hospitalization/death.' These are very different things.
fabian2k 3y ago
The virus the vaccine was first tested is quite different than the version we faced later. The virus is not a static target, but a quickly evolving one. And the later variants were far, far more contagious than the initial one.