Pfizer "90% Effective" Doesn't Mean It's Effective

[ecstatichamster]

I totally don't believe it.

Do you have any analysis of this? I'm trying to see what statistical tricks they are playing.

 

[haidut]

I totally don't believe it.

Do you have any analysis of this? I'm trying to see what statistical tricks they are playing.

There is not much data available online but here is this link.
Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine 90 Percent Effective: Initial Data
"...While it’s unclear exactly how many of the trial’s 43,000 participants, who received either two doses of the vaccine or the placebo, have contracted COVID-19, the interim analysis includes 94 confirmed cases. Among these 94, roughly 10 percent had been given the vaccine, while the other 90 percent had been given a placebo."

So, first of all, 94 out of 43,000 patients represents just 0.2% infection rate. These 94 cases were roughly split into 90% / 10% for placebo/vaccine groups. I would like to see the analysis that determined that such a small number is actually a statistically significant result, especially when it is further split between the placebo and vaccine groups. Also, I would like to see how the vaccine and placebo groups have been selected and controlled for lifestyle choices. Are all people whom the vaccine protected from an urban setting with strong mask and social distancing mandates? Are all cases in the placebo group from areas with lax requirements - i.e. rural/conservative areas in the US? That alone could easily explain the difference in infection rates. There are so many opportunities for shenanigans here and unfortunately. I don't think the full report/analysis on which the vaccine would be approved is likely to ever be released. Only Pfizer, FDA and the CRO conducting the trial have access to it and it is usually protected better than govt info classified at the top secret level. Oh, btw often even FDA does not get to see the full analysis/report due to "trade secrets" info such reports allegedly contain.
And last, but not least, all these trials are testing is infection prevention. They do not test for any of the important measures such as whether the vaccine prevents/reduces exacerbations, hospitalizations, deaths, or even transmission of infection to another person.
COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Essentially Pointless

@Drareg

 

[ecstatichamster]

Thanks @haidut exactly what I was hoping to learn...

this seems to be nothing but random noise honestly...I don't think this would be significant.

The protocols I have seen say they are NOT testing immune compromised people or people over 55.

 

[brocktoon]

"...And last, but not least, all these trials are testing is infection prevention. They do not test for any of the important measures..."

I dunno -- testing for infection prevention does seem like an important measure. Georgi, you're always so stridently skeptical, almost as if you're rooting against a bona fide vaccine.

 

[haidut]

The protocols I have seen say they are NOT testing immune compromised people or people over 55.

In that case the vaccine is truly pointless, as my other link suggests. Those age groups are much less likely to get infected and about as likely to die from it as if they got the flu.
CNN: Covid-19 Death Rate Is Under 1% For Everyone But People Over 70

There is also the issue of prior vaccinations. If the flu vaccine increases risk of getting COVID-19, as Peat said, then Pfizer could have selected the placebo group to be fully vaccinated, you know, for additional safety since they would be getting a "placebo" and that would ensure higher rate of infections there. Also, even if the placebo group had the same vaccination rates (for other vaccines) as the active group, if the placebo group got another vaccine as "placebo", Pfizer could have selected that vaccine so that it increases chance of COVID-19 infection.
A whimsical suggestion: correlate influenza vaccine uptake with Covid-19 frequency
The vexed question of flu shots and the risk of Covid-19

 

[haidut]

"...And last, but not least, all these trials are testing is infection prevention. They do not test for any of the important measures..."

I dunno -- testing for infection prevention does seem like an important measure. Georgi, you're always so stridently skeptical, almost as if you're rooting against a bona fide vaccine.

I am not rooting against the vaccine per se but against what it is sold as - the one true measure that will allow us to get back to normal. How is it going to do that if all it tests is infection prevention...and in age groups that are much less likely to get infected and to die from COVID-19? I can't even count how many politicians got on TV selling this vaccine as the panacea for the whole world claiming it would do things that no trial currently will test for. While I am sure there are good motivations behind developing it, at the political level this is nothing but a sales pitch and frankly more of a "liars lunch" than good science. No vaccine should ever be "pushed" on the population. If it works, so be it. But this is basically the H1N1 pitch on steroids, and now with the social restriction measures the population will gobble up without any questioning anything the political/medical industry sells them.

 

[revenant]

And last, but not least, all these trials are testing is infection prevention. They do not test for any of the important measures such as whether the vaccine prevents/reduces exacerbations, hospitalizations, deaths, or even transmission of infection to another person.

Isn't infection prevention the same as transmission of infection to another person? I would say this particular trial is testing symptom prevention.

Anyway, the Pfizer study counts anyone with a positive COVID test + some symptoms as a case. They don't measure whether you can still infect someone else after the vaccine. Which means it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for anyone under 50 to get the vaccine. If you can still potentially infect your grandparents or whoever, what's the point?

 

[haidut]

Isn't infection prevention the same as transmission of infection to another person? I would say this particular trial is testing symptom prevention.

Anyway, the Pfizer study counts anyone with a positive COVID test + some symptoms as a case. They don't measure whether you can still infect someone else after the vaccine. Which means it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for anyone under 50 to get the vaccine. If you can still potentially infect your grandparents or whoever, what's the point?

Look at my link above in response to @ecstatichamster. The current vaccine trials do not test for re-transmission.
"...The most advanced trials for coronavirus vaccines cannot tell researchers if the shots will save lives, or even if they'll prevent serious disease, a drug development expert pointed out Wednesday. The ongoing trials are only designed to show if the vaccines prevent infection -- and most infections are mild infections, Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the BMJ medical journal and a drug development specialist at the University of Maryland's school of pharmacy, said. "I think there are some pretty widely held assumptions about what we are getting out of Phase 3 studies," Doshi told CNN." "None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus," Doshi wrote in the BMJ."

 

[LucyL]

Exactly how sick did any of the "positive" cases get? In either arm of the trial? And what tests were they using to determine positive COVID status? As best I could make out they were allowing "local" tests, which probably means the worthless PCR tests. And why did they not report after the first two interim analysis? It feels like the vote counts that stop for a period of time and then start up again with a whole new batch for a particular candidate...
The New Normal: By Any Means Necessary - Taki's Magazine

 

[paymanz]

i heard people dont become immune after they recovering from covid-19 , then whats the point of a vaccine? lol

is immunity to any kind of virus even a real thing?

 

[haidut]

is immunity to any kind of virus even a real thing?

Nope, there isn't, and this is a point Peat and Jamie Cunliffe have been trying to make for decades. Being "immune" simply means being a collection of well-energized, highly lipophilic cells, and that state changes continuously throughout life.
home_page

As an example, it is well-known that stress can render vaccinations no better than placebos.
Chronic psychosocial stress: does it modulate immunity to the influenza vaccine in Hong Kong Chinese elderly caregivers?
Chronic stress alters the immune response to influenza virus vaccine in older adults.

In extreme cases, such as people with PTSD, vaccinations actually may cause a catastrophic immune failure and even death. To talk about vaccines as somehow being the primary "provider" of immunity, without taking into consideration the health of the patient and his/her environment (both of which change continuously) is simply nonsense. But if the factors influencing vaccine effectiveness change all the time, then what's the point of even giving one?

 

[Kram]

If they are only testing for infection prevention, wouldn't you then expect a reduction in symptoms, hospitalizations and deaths etc. (assuming it is actually effective)?

Also https://nypost.com/2020/11/11/pfizers-vaccine-volunteers-say-it-felt-like-severe-hangover/

 

[paymanz]

Nope, there isn't, and this is a point Peat and Jamie Cunliffe have been trying to make for decades. Being "immune" simply means being a collection of well-energized, highly lipophilic cells, and that state changes continuously throughout life.
home_page

As an example, it is well-known that stress can render vaccinations no better than placebos.
Chronic psychosocial stress: does it modulate immunity to the influenza vaccine in Hong Kong Chinese elderly caregivers?
Chronic stress alters the immune response to influenza virus vaccine in older adults.

In extreme cases, such as people with PTSD, vaccinations actually may cause a catastrophic immune failure and even death. To talk about vaccines as somehow being the primary "provider" of immunity, without taking into consideration the health of the patient and his/her environment (both of which change continuously) is simply nonsense. But if the factors influencing vaccine effectiveness change all the time, then what's the point of even giving one?

thanks , so vaccines may provide immunity to some degree? (if the person is relatively is good state)

 

[ecstatichamster]

https://nypost.com/2020/11/11/pfizers-vaccine-volunteers-say-it-felt-like-severe-hangover/

Volunteers who received the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine during trials say it left them feeling like they had a “severe hangover,” according to reports.

The more than 43,500 people in six countries who took part in phase three trials by the pharmaceutical giant were never told whether they were injected with the vaccine or a placebo in the double-blind tests.

But some said they knew they had the drug because of headaches, fever and muscle aches that were compared to getting the flu shot or recovering from a heavy night out, the Sun said.

Texan Glenn Deshields, 44, said his “severe hangover” symptoms soon cleared up, however — and he later took an antibody test that came back positive.

He said he was “very excited” by Monday’s news that the tests showed the vaccine was 90% effective — and compared it to the end of a war.

“My grandfather, one of his first memories was of the bells ringing when World War I ended,” said the lobbyist from Austin.

“It was a horrific war and horrible things happened and people were just happy it was over with.

Pfizer vaccine volunteer Glenn DeshieldsFacebook
“In my mind, I felt the same way … I kind of felt it was something like that. Thank God, it’s going to be over at some point.”

Another volunteer who only gave her first name, Carrie, said she suffered a headache, fever and aches all over her body after her first shot — symptoms that were even more severe after the second one, Metro UK said.

The 45-year-old from Missouri said taking part in the trials was her “civic duty.”

“There are so many people who have had it and suffered. The thought that we could do something to stop people from suffering from this, from losing family members, that we could get rid of it and get back to some sort of normal in our lives — that’s a driving factor for this for me,” she said.

“I don’t want anyone else to be sick.”

 

[boris]

If they are only testing for infection prevention, wouldn't you then expect a reduction in symptoms, hospitalizations and deaths etc.?

@Kram

"...The most advanced trials for coronavirus vaccines cannot tell researchers if the shots will save lives, or even if they'll prevent serious disease, a drug development expert pointed out Wednesday. The ongoing trials are only designed to show if the vaccines prevent infection -- and most infections are mild infections, Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the BMJ medical journal and a drug development specialist at the University of Maryland's school of pharmacy, said. "I think there are some pretty widely held assumptions about what we are getting out of Phase 3 studies," Doshi told CNN." "None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus," Doshi wrote in the BMJ."

"..."Hospital admissions and deaths from Covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30,000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out."

Mild cases don't get hospitalized nor die. The sole reasoning for starting the lockdowns was to prevent the hospitals from being overburdenend.

Hospitals were never overburdened btw, but empty. They even had to use fake footage to show a bustling ward.

 

[tankasnowgod]

thanks , so vaccines may provide immunity to some degree? (if the person is relatively is good state)

Maybe kinda sorta possibly.

 

[tankasnowgod]

If they are only testing for infection prevention, wouldn't you then expect a reduction in symptoms, hospitalizations and deaths etc.

It's pretty much been proven at this point that the best way to reduce hospitalizations is to lay off hundreds of thousands of doctors.

Record number of healthcare workers laid off, furloughed during pandemic: A record number of nurses and healthcare workers have lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic as hospitals halted revenue-generating elective surgeries and routine procedures, according to Newsweek.

California hospitals laying off nurses, doctors and other staff | abc10.com

Thousands of healthcare workers are laid off or furloughed as coronavirus spreads

Thousands of California health care workers laid off or furloughed as COVID-19 spreads | KTLA

Remember, COVID hasn't been anywhere near the #1 killer anywhere in the world at any time this year, even if you take the obviously inflated and fraudulent numbers at face value. Tuberculosis remains the top killing respiratory disease, and cancer and heart disease are at number 1 and 2 everywhere. COVID is maybe the 20th leading cause of death this year.

About 1.3 million Americans die every year of cancer and heart disease. So, send all the cancer and heart disease patients home, and hospitals will be operating at 25-50% of normal capacity! Can't have patients if there's no doctors or nurses there to treat them! #Genius

 

[Vinny]

Georgi, you're always so stridently skeptical,

Skeptical comes from Greek Σκέψη (skepsi) which means thoughtful (as well as attentive, careful....)

 

[brocktoon]

Skeptical comes from Greek Σκέψη (skepsi) which means thoughtful (as well as attentive, careful....)

Yes. Stridently skeptical.

 

[revenant]

How Ticketmaster Plans to Check Your Vaccine Status for Concerts: Exclusive

"Here's how it would work, if approved: After purchasing a ticket for a concert, fans would need to verify that they have already been vaccinated (which would provide approximately one year of COVID-19 protection) or test negative for coronavirus approximately 24 to 72 hours prior to the concert. "