I am certainly pleased to see some data. The trial is an absolute mess and it's not clear to me how random their assignment was for the subgroups, especially for the prime-boost interval. But it's certainly good to see at least some data.
I am certainly pleased to see some data. The trial is an absolute mess and it's not clear to me how random their assignment was for the subgroups, especially for the prime-boost interval. But it's certainly good to see at least some data.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Is 76% good?Originally Posted by RandBlade
Anyone know what happens in week 13?
Yes its good.
Before the Pfizer results came out people were saying that 60% would be very good. Flu vaccines typically have 40-60% efficacy so 76% for a single shot is excellent.
And at 76% its obviously a truism that doing twice as many people is better. Though the data seems to be that's recommended anyway since the second dose does better after 12 weeks too.
76% isn't terrible, but the study is poorly powered and designed so it's hard to know the true efficacy. Really solid vaccines are typically >90% effective, but many widely used ones are in the 80-90% range, and a few dip into the 70s. I'm talking about widely vaccinated against targets like MMR and TDAP, not difficult seasonal targets like influenza. In the current pandemic, widespread protection with a vaccine that was actually 76% effective would be a great boon, even if other vaccines might work better.
Re: longer time points, the reality is that none of the trials have released long term results yet because there simply hasn't been enough time since the trials were fully enrolled. We should expect to have readouts over the next ~2 years for the long term efficacy of these various vaccines, though the data with AZN is probably going to be most muddled of the Western-produced vaccines.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Really seeming like we're better off with Pfizer until more of the unknowns around AZN become known.
How on earth do you figure that? The report yesterday was absolutely fantastic news.
A vaccine that protects against infection 76% of the time from just a single dose, reduces hospitalisations by nearly 100%, reduces onward transmission by over 50% and is readily available, mass produced and available to be distributed . . . and you think we might be better off without it? Please explain that twisted logic!
Not using the AZN vaccine which has been clinically shown to be safe and efficacious just because it isn't 100% protective is like saying we shouldn't wear face masks, or stay at home, or avoid crowds because there hasn't been a 100% perfect clinical trial to demonstrate those either.
If there's a simple choice, the other vaccines are easier to choose. Otherwise, a vaccine now is probably (from a risk analysis perspective) better than another vaccine later. Drawing good conclusions about efficacy, esp. among the elderly, is difficult, when it comes to AZN's data. The latest preprint is even more of a mess than their previous releases. The claims re. benefit of longer interval are overstated afaict. In several important respects, the short interval group differed substantially from the long-interval group. Only talking about specific claims re. efficacy and preferable interval here, not saying anyone should be particularly worried. But if you have a choice, it's rational to choose the one with higher quality evidence at the moment.
Last edited by Aimless; 02-03-2021 at 10:08 AM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
We're ramping up to a million jabs a day. If a million Pfizer jabs a day were available then maybe go with that. There aren't that many available and never will be.
Unconfirmed reports today that the plan is to have the entire country vaccinated with two doses by August. Previously there'd been indications of one dose for everyone by August potentially. If that's done that will be a remarkable achievement and eliminate the virus as a pandemic threat domestically, probably mean we can have a good domestic summer once the first dose for everyone is complete, but that can't be done if we don't use the vaccines we have available.
Given that many millions of people have now received a vaccine, plus there's further studies happening already too (eg there is a trial investigating the efficiency of 1 Pfizer + 1 Astrazeneca as a deliberate mix and match regime) there should be plenty more data to come very soon but what we have is enough to say it is safe and efficacious enough - whereas leaving people unvaccinated is not safe.
You'll probably have enough to vaccinate young, middle-aged and younger-old people with the AZN vaccine, and vaccinate the very old with the other candidates. Pretty much there already as the latter group has been prioritized.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
There isn't much alternative no, but my hypothetical is exactly that. If we had a simple choice between AZN and Pfizer and others which have completed their trials, the simple choice is Pfizer and others, not AZN. We don't have that choice, so AZN is being rolled out with the others.How on earth do you figure that? The report yesterday was absolutely fantastic news.
A vaccine that protects against infection 76% of the time from just a single dose, reduces hospitalisations by nearly 100%, reduces onward transmission by over 50% and is readily available, mass produced and available to be distributed . . . and you think we might be better off without it? Please explain that twisted logic!
As above, no suggestion of not using AZN.Not using the AZN vaccine which has been clinically shown to be safe and efficacious just because it isn't 100% protective is like saying we shouldn't wear face masks, or stay at home, or avoid crowds because there hasn't been a 100% perfect clinical trial to demonstrate those either.
Twitter Link
I wanna give her the benefit of the doubt here, but, in light of some of her previous statements of a similar nature, I don't think she deserves it.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Unless that's taken well out of context it is a bloody stupid remark.
Incidentally I'm not convinced there's much if any long term difference between AZN and Pfizer vaccines.
Pfizer originally showed a 95% efficacy, though that was against the original virus. This longer term study of AZN in both Brazil and South Africa shows an 82.4% efficacy - though that was against both the new variants from South Africa and Brazil that are concerning people about the risk these variants could evade the vaccine. Novavax showed in its trial a 60% efficacy versus the South African variant for instance.
Irish not playing politics or being stupid with the vaccine. Well done to them. Irish recommendation on vaccines:
There is an urgency to protect those aged 70 and older who are at most risk of a severe outcome. Because of the ongoing concern regarding rates of community COVID-19 transmission and hospitalisation, NIAC recognises that the best vaccine anyone can receive at this time is the vaccine that can be soonest administered. Everyone is strongly urged to accept whichever vaccine is available.
https://rcpi-live-cdn.s3.amazonaws.c...CMO-Re-AZD.pdf
Either Georgia isn't updating its numbers or no one got vaccinated since my last post here...
Hope is the denial of reality
They're just waiting for the Democrats to figure out whatever numbers they need then Dominion will dump them all at once overnight.
So soon the lamestream media will report Biden has been vaccinated 100.000 times.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
I want to be absolutely clear here: my criticisms of the AZN clinical trial design/reporting and the way in which the UK government is rolling out vaccination for AZN and Pfizer is in no way indication that I do not think that the AZN vaccine is safe and effective.
The data was messy but it certainly appears to be quite safe, and it is certainly somewhat effective in reducing the risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The exact degree of efficacy for certain subpopulations (old people, people with certain morbidities, children) and the exact efficacy for a given dose and dose schedule is not as well understood; my guess is that for certain populations and dosing regimes you will get very good protection, and for others you will get some protection but not as much as we might prefer.
I also want to emphasize the the vector used in the AZN vaccine (and others like the JNJ) is better understood than the method being used by Pfizer and Moderna. It's still a nonstandard vector, but it has been used in some contexts before; on that basis, prior to having clinical data there would be a preference for the AZN/JNJ approach. Of course, Pfizer and Moderna have reported absolutely fantastic results, and their design is more easily modified if mutations should require new vaccines. Their trials have also been cleaner and more definitive. If I were an older person living in a country with a sophisticated cold chain capability, I would certainly have a slight preference for Pfizer or Moderna. However, for the general population, I think AZN and JNJ will be adequate, and their improved stability should be a real boon. I imagine that a 2-dose JNJ regimen will work better than the previously reported 1-dose regimen; in that circumstance, I would recommend a 2-dose JNJ over AZN given the cleaner data, but would still argue that AZN is perfectly acceptable for non-infirm/old adults in the best studied dosing regimen.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-after-21-days
*Boom*
Pfizer 90% effective after only one dose, after 21 days. Just as their trial data showed.
Giving one dose to twice as many people will save countless lives over giving two doses to half as many.
For the love of GOD.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Absolutely. For the love of God that is a stunning result to get more evidence for.
If it's 95% for one person or 90% for two people then doing twice as many people is like for like 180% efficacious.
I implore you not to make unsubstantiated conclusions on the basis of a headline. Evidence driven policy requires careful analysis and re-analysis of data. The findings in the preprint that the Guardian article linked to were indeed an interesting take on the Israeli dataset (albeit with some substantial shortfalls and an obvious motive) but it in no way provides evidence for the conclusion you jumped to. I am not going to trot out all of the same tired arguments I've used in the last couple of weeks because it's clearly not a meaningful use of my time.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Evidence and proof are not the same thing. In a rapidly evolving environment absolutely careful analysis and reanalysis of the data should occur.
This data is significant and should feed into that analysis and reanalysis. Unless something in the findings has gone wrong then a 90% level of protection should be quite statistically significant and it should feed into the evidence and analysis of what is going on. That it is real world evidence of matching the conclusions drawn from the clinical trials shouldn't be ignored or totally discarded.
I appreciate you would prefer a series of scientifically rigorous double blind controlled studies to test every hypothesis but we are in a pandemic today. Delay in responding to evidence can lead to thousands of lives being lost. If the study had shown instead of 90% protection just 10% protection from dose one that would be a reason to urgently rethink. But if that had happened would you calmly say it in "no way provides evidence"?
You don't work a lot with statistics, do you?
Caveat, I have not looked into this data, nor am I familiar enough with clinical data, but your way of posting.. doesn't display a good understanding of statistics or significance.
Keep in mind these things are not necessarily intuitive.
Of course double blind studies are better, but absent of that, using the data you have properly is even more important.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Yes I do work with statistics and yes confidence intervals etc matter which is why I spoke about significance.
Not just one study now, not just two or five but many, many independent studies including double-blind placebo controlled studies have shown that the vaccines are giving no protection (indeed this study says negative protection in Israel) in the week after initial injection but are giving very substantial (70-90% depending upon vaccine) protection by three weeks after the first dose is given.
Now you can write all that off, but it is not scientific. There is plenty of data to come up with a hypothesis that vaccines give substantial protection by three weeks after initial injection. Further statistical evidence, like this Israeli study, can and should fit into Bayesian analysis of this hypothesis.
We don't need to start from a blank sheet of paper every time.
Hold yer horses there Jimmy.
" ... But Prof Paul Hunter and Dr Julii Brainard say their reanalysis of the data, which has not been peer-reviewed, ..."
As wigs said, you gotta be careful jumping on headlines.
Just because its not been peer-reviewed yet doesn't make it wrong.
Anything above 50% efficacy from a single dose makes it virtually a truism that twice as many people vaccinated > half as many vaccinated. It would take a catastrophic bungling of the data to reduce efficacy at 3 weeks from one dose from an estimated 90% down to below 50%.
Plus as I said this isn't happening in a vaccuum. All the evidence that is accumulating allows us to set a reasonable hypothesis that a single dose by 3 weeks provides a great amount of immunity. That is the hypothesis that the JCVI, all 4 Governments of all the parties and all 4 CMOs are operating on. This data fits that hypothesis which should be very reassuring - if it did not it would be very concerning.
Portugal's Health Service overwhelmed with cases. Germany assists by sending medical teams and equipment.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote