My point is that there are much better datasets to support the narrow contention that you have reasonably good efficacy in weeks 3 and 4 - something that I should mention there's little debate about.Originally Posted by RandBlade
I was quoting numbers on unpublished data from Israeli studies that were in weeks 3 and 4, here: http://theworldforgotten.com/showthr...l=1#post223314Can I ask you a few questions please?
1. Last time we discussed this you used the 52% figure rather than higher as efficacy which I said was because of averaging the first fortnight with the latter period. That there was no efficacy in week one, low in week two and high by week three, which averages to the 52%. Do you accept that now?
The 52% number you're talking about was mentioned by LF, and he was corrected by you and others. I do agree that including the first couple of weeks can confound the data.
There is growing evidence of reasonably high levels of efficacy for most segments of the adult population in weeks 3 and 4 following the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. I have never disputed this, though I did suggest that real life efficacy would likely not be 90+% for all patient groups; the data seem to bear this out, though the confusion of studies with differing endpoints and variable controls makes determining a really tight estimate challenging.2. Do you accept that there is now significant evidence that a single dose gives very high levels of protection by the third or fourth week without a booster jab yet?
The data for the Moderna vaccine is looking to be similar, though because of the slower approval/rollout in the most heavily studied population (Israel) the data quality isn't quite as high. The data for AZN is much thinner, both because it hasn't been approved in many places and because the original trial data was muddled and too narrow for generalizing the results.
I do not think this is a reasonable assumption, no. I also do not think that there is sufficient evidence for the additional implicit assumption that you'll have similar long term efficacy post second dose between a 'as studied and authorized' dosing regime and an untested delayed second dose regime.3. Do you think that if a single dose does give very high levels of protection by the third and fourth weeks that it's a reasonable assumption to believe that would last the following eight weeks? Like how people who've been infected in the past 90 days aren't being asked to take tests at least here?
Indeed, this is a difficult public health problem. If only we had a rigorous scientific debate on different quantitative models to better estimate and understand the dynamics of how morbidity might be affected by different strategies. Better yet, if only we had good prospective trials looking at a single dose vs. double dose regime, or a delayed double dose regimen. Oh, wait! That's exactly what Janssen did, and that's why if/when they get authorization for a single dose regimen there will be ample scientific evidence to estimate the effect.4. Edit oh and finally we know for a fact don't we that someone not getting their first dose due to limited supply and it's gone to someone else getting their booster instead will have no protection don't we?
Reply With Quote