Lancet Study on Pfizer Vaccination Efficacy

1,884 Views | 22 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by YouBet
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:27a, 8/7/21
AG
This may have been discussed since this was published in April, but I could not find an existing topic. If it's been discussed we can ignore this although I would personally appreciate the link if it has.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext?s=09

I'm interpreting this to say that the Pfizer vaccine reduces your risk of contracting COVID by 0.84%. This actually aligns to the CDC Director's comments this week that these vaccines can't stop transmission. At least I think that's what it's telling me.

The other number in this is the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one infection: 119. That seems high but I have no context of what is normal, good, or bad.
Reply Quote
1
PerpetualLurker
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:13a, 8/7/21
I dont think you are interpreting that correctly, at least about the lowered probability.

It might be a reduction of 0.84 percentage points, but thats not the same as a 0.84% reduction.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-thelancet-riskreduction-idUSL2N2NK1XA
Reply Quote
1
Irwin M. Fletcher
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:14a, 8/7/21
AG
It's comparing relative risk reduction to absolute risk reduction. The ARR will always be smaller in any vaccine, so this is true with childhood vaccines as well. The RRR basically is saying you're 95% less likely to get COVID than someone that has not been vaccinated but the ARR or the actual number of people that get COVID in both groups would be small as many unvaccinated will also not get COVID. The easiest thing to look at now is specifically hospitalizations as the number of unvaccinated people make up almost 99% of hospitalizations.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
texan12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Irwin M. Fletcher • 10:19a, 8/7/21
Irwin M. Fletcher said:
It's comparing relative risk reduction to absolute risk reduction. The ARR will always be smaller in any vaccine, so this is true with childhood vaccines as well. The RRR basically is saying you're 95% less likely to get COVID than someone that has not been vaccinated but the ARR or the actual number of people that get COVID in both groups would be small as many unvaccinated will also not get COVID. The easiest thing to look at now is specifically hospitalizations as the number of unvaccinated people make up almost 99% of hospitalizations.


According to the CDC for ages 0-49, from Jan 2020 to July 2021, there have been 29,249 covid deaths nation-wide. That's .00009% of the total population.

To include 50-64 year olds the number goes to 126,426 or .0004% of the US.

For ages 0-17 there's been 349 deaths over the same period.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku
Reply Quote
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Irwin M. Fletcher • 10:24a, 8/7/21
AG
Irwin M. Fletcher said:
It's comparing relative risk reduction to absolute risk reduction. The ARR will always be smaller in any vaccine, so this is true with childhood vaccines as well. The RRR basically is saying you're 95% less likely to get COVID than someone that has not been vaccinated but the ARR or the actual number of people that get COVID in both groups would be small as many unvaccinated will also not get COVID. The easiest thing to look at now is specifically hospitalizations as the number of unvaccinated people make up almost 99% of hospitalizations.
Makes sense.

Are we then confusing effectiveness of the vaccine with ability to stop transmission? I've never doubted the effectiveness of the vaccine, but now you have our dumbass CDC Director saying they can't stop transmission which directly contradicts the RRR of 95% as you have defined it.

In other words, if you get it the vaccine is going to help reduce the symptoms and severity of it, but they don't do much in the way of keeping you from getting it according to her. If the latter isn't true, then we need to fire Walensky and get someone in the job that is competent.
Reply Quote
KlinkerAg11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:29a, 8/7/21
AG
Yeah it's frustrating how good these vaccines are, yet you wouldn't know it.

Where I live the local health department is tracking infections while vaccinated. So far 88 percent of people getting Covid aren't vaccinated, that's a win for the vaccine. (Started tracking on June 24th, so it's the summer wave)
Reply Quote
1
Irwin M. Fletcher
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YouBet • 10:35a, 8/7/21
AG
YouBet said:
Irwin M. Fletcher said:
It's comparing relative risk reduction to absolute risk reduction. The ARR will always be smaller in any vaccine, so this is true with childhood vaccines as well. The RRR basically is saying you're 95% less likely to get COVID than someone that has not been vaccinated but the ARR or the actual number of people that get COVID in both groups would be small as many unvaccinated will also not get COVID. The easiest thing to look at now is specifically hospitalizations as the number of unvaccinated people make up almost 99% of hospitalizations.
Makes sense.

Are we then confusing effectiveness of the vaccine with ability to stop transmission? I've never doubted the effectiveness of the vaccine, but now you have our dumbass CDC Director saying they can't stop transmission which directly contradicts the RRR of 95% as you have defined it.

In other words, if you get it the vaccine is going to help reduce the symptoms and severity of it, but they don't do much in the way of keeping you from getting it according to her. If the latter isn't true, then we need to fire Walensky and get someone in the job that is competent.
Vaccinated people that get it usually don't have a clue they have it. It's really mild or no symptoms, so they may be carrying it but compared to someone that is knocked on their ass for a week at home even if they don't have to go to the hospital then that in itself is a huge level of effectiveness.
Reply Quote
3
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KlinkerAg11 • 10:37a, 8/7/21
AG
KlinkerAg11 said:
Yeah it's frustrating how good these vaccines are, yet you wouldn't know it.

Where I live the local health department is tracking infections while vaccinated. So far 88 percent of people getting Covid aren't vaccinated, that's a win for the vaccine. (Started tracking on June 24th, so it's the summer wave)


Similar to the whole NE "mass spreader" event in the news last week. It was portrayed as a national setback when in reality it was a huge win. And that's because the goalposts have moved from mitigation to eradication.

The latter is impossible and will just lead to tyranny as is being proven on a daily basis.
Reply Quote
3
KlinkerAg11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YouBet • 10:41a, 8/7/21
AG
Yeah, I read that data and was excited how effective the vaccine was.

I also bet there are people where I live who are fully vaccinated that are getting Covid, but it's so mild they won't get tested. IMO I think I'm one of those people from a really close exposure to a friend who had symptomatic Covid.

That's great news, we should be celebrating that. Instead folks are giving more ammo to people who won't get vaccinated.
Reply Quote
2
Irwin M. Fletcher
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to texan12 • 10:42a, 8/7/21
AG
texan12 said:
Irwin M. Fletcher said:
It's comparing relative risk reduction to absolute risk reduction. The ARR will always be smaller in any vaccine, so this is true with childhood vaccines as well. The RRR basically is saying you're 95% less likely to get COVID than someone that has not been vaccinated but the ARR or the actual number of people that get COVID in both groups would be small as many unvaccinated will also not get COVID. The easiest thing to look at now is specifically hospitalizations as the number of unvaccinated people make up almost 99% of hospitalizations.


According to the CDC for ages 0-49, from Jan 2020 to July 2021, there have been 29,249 covid deaths nation-wide. That's .00009% of the total population.

To include 50-64 year olds the number goes to 126,426 or .0004% of the US.

For ages 0-17 there's been 349 deaths over the same period.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku
And what's your point?
Reply Quote
1
texan12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Irwin M. Fletcher • 10:45a, 8/7/21
Draw your own conclusions based on the perceived risks.
Reply Quote
Irwin M. Fletcher
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to texan12 • 11:35a, 8/7/21
AG
texan12 said:
Draw your own conclusions based on the perceived risks.
Well that is true if you are just looking at death rates alone they are "relatively" small; however, you are not accounting for many other risks. Such as hospitalizations which makes the number go into the low single digits for adults over 30, and then there is long COVID which you also don't account for. As many as 15% of those over 30 experience this and many for over a year. Things such as reduced lung function, elevated heart rate, brain fog just to name a few. The serious adverse events with the vaccine are unbelievably low. You noticed I used your death numbers as relatively low when just looking at them but serious adverse events with the vaccine are significantly lower than those numbers, and that is all serious adverse events. If it is just death then it is basically zero from the vaccine itself. So I do think you have the right to not get vaccinated if you choose not to, but if you are looking at only death rates then you are making some poor choices. It is a simple math test at this point and if you choose not get vaccinated you don't know how to evaluate risk and are doubling down on poor information. I understood the hesitation from some early but now its just like you don't want to admit that yeah maybe this is a good idea. I do believe in your right to make bad decisions however.
Reply Quote
5
2 edits
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Irwin M. Fletcher • 11:37a, 8/7/21
AG
He also didn't factor in the health of the individuals, just age.
Reply Quote
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KlinkerAg11 • 11:46a, 8/7/21
AG
KlinkerAg11 said:
Yeah, I read that data and was excited how effective the vaccine was.

I also bet there are people where I live who are fully vaccinated that are getting Covid, but it's so mild they won't get tested. IMO I think I'm one of those people from a really close exposure to a friend who had symptomatic Covid.

That's great news, we should be celebrating that. Instead folks are giving more ammo to people who won't get vaccinated.
I'm not vaccinated, but it's not because I'm anti-vax.

With all of the confusion, lying, flip flopping, and fear mongering by the media and the people in power it's easy to understand why many are though.
Reply Quote
texan12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Irwin M. Fletcher • 11:55a, 8/7/21
Do you believe the healthiest and youngest are making bad decisions in terms of not getting the vaccine?
Reply Quote
Irwin M. Fletcher
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YouBet • 11:59a, 8/7/21
AG
It is pretty easy to do your own research from good sources and see that one the vaccine is very effective in preventing any serious illness and two that it is safe with over 200 million doses that have been given. I agree looking at the media is a bad idea no matter if its CNN or Fox its all spin and terrible information. Information on the internet is even worse and ridiculous but many people believe it. Go talk with actual doctors many here on this site, they will say the same thing I have, it is safe and effective and although more than likely you will be fine if you get COVID, it is still not a tiny number that don't experience anything. Just the 15% of people that get long COVID is really high, even though that means there is an 85% chance you don't experience even that, as for me I didn't want to be at home feeling like crap for a week or more, that alone was enough for me.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Irwin M. Fletcher
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to texan12 • 12:03p, 8/7/21
AG
texan12 said:
Do you believe the healthiest and youngest are making bad decisions in terms of not getting the vaccine?
Anyone over 30 yes. I personally know a guy that was super healthy an avid runner that had COVID over a year ago and his heart rate still elevates at the slightest exercise. I know that is anecdotal but if you read into the data people like that are not that uncommon, once healthy and now have long term issues. Even adults in their 20's should strongly consider it, now teens that is a different issue and I can see not getting it then.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:11p, 8/7/21
AG
Sincere question: doesn't the fact that this virus is "mucosal" have a lot to do with the fact that those who are vaccinated can still get and transmit the virus, even though they are very likely to not get severe disease? Being mucosal, is it not true that the virus can replicate in the mucosal membranes of the nose and sinuses in a vaccinated person and theoretically be transmitted by that person, but then when the virus makes its way to the vaccinated person's lungs it encounters the vaccinated blood of that person and therefore no sickness or serious sickness follows?

Please correct me if I have any of that wrong.
Reply Quote
texan12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Irwin M. Fletcher • 12:12p, 8/7/21
I can respect the anecdotal data with so much modeling and forecasting out there, some of which seems to have a slant. I personally haven't seen the bad side of covid that many have and that takes in account a workforce of almost 500 people who have been working since the beginning with no restrictions.

I have brought up the death numbers so often Bc it has seems to be lost in the media and even on here. After watching the news for the first time in a year, you would have thought half the population has died.
Reply Quote
Irwin M. Fletcher
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to texan12 • 12:15p, 8/7/21
AG
texan12 said:
I can respect the anecdotal data with so much modeling and forecasting out there, some of which seems to have a slant. I personally haven't seen the bad side of covid that many have and that takes in account a workforce of almost 500 people who have been working since the beginning with no restrictions.

I have brought up the death numbers so often Bc it has seems to be lost in the media and even on here. After watching the news for the first time in a year, you would have thought half the population has died.
As I told that other guy, don't listen to the media it is all spin. There are some very good doctors on this site and every single one will echo what I have been saying. You can't just look at death rates and if you are over 30 and choose not to get vaccinated you are making an ill informed poor decision period, but that is your right. Try to prove yourself wrong and don't just seek out confirmation bias and what you have seen yourself as the end all be all. I work in the medical arena so I had the ability to talk to a lot of doctors about this whole thing.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Irwin M. Fletcher • 12:19p, 8/7/21
AG
Irwin M. Fletcher said:
It is pretty easy to do your own research from good sources and see that one the vaccine is very effective in preventing any serious illness and two that it is safe with over 200 million doses that have been given. I agree looking at the media is a bad idea no matter if its CNN or Fox its all spin and terrible information. Information on the internet is even worse and ridiculous but many people believe it. Go talk with actual doctors many here on this site, they will say the same thing I have, it is safe and effective and although more than likely you will be fine if you get COVID, it is still not a tiny number that don't experience anything. Just the 15% of people that get long COVID is really high, even though that means there is an 85% chance you don't experience even that, as for me I didn't want to be at home feeling like crap for a week or more, that alone was enough for me.
I do. I don't question the vaccines efficacy for at risk populations. If you are at risk, you should get it. But, you can't take anything at face value anymore. The CDC has really damaged their credibility with mask policies, Fauci's admitted lies, and now Walensky's blatant incompetence.

We are supposed to be able to trust supposed apolitical entities like the CDC and the various health policy organizations, yet we no longer can and that is not the fault of us Neanderthals in the hinterlands. They've ruined their reputations and forced people to question everything. Finding objective research is damn hard to find and know how much political angle is being pushed with it.
Reply Quote
Irwin M. Fletcher
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YouBet • 12:23p, 8/7/21
AG
Talk to doctors on this site they are Ags and know. A lot of the info wasn't as much lying as it was they really just didn't know and were learning on the fly. Now Fauci is a joke and is all theatre for him, but don't look to him. I am telling you as I told that other guy if you are over 30 get the vaccine, the chance of you having serious issues are practically zero and that can not be said of getting COVID itself. Those are facts and easily researched.
Reply Quote
3
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YouBet • 12:54p, 8/7/21
YouBet said:
Irwin M. Fletcher said:
It's comparing relative risk reduction to absolute risk reduction. The ARR will always be smaller in any vaccine, so this is true with childhood vaccines as well. The RRR basically is saying you're 95% less likely to get COVID than someone that has not been vaccinated but the ARR or the actual number of people that get COVID in both groups would be small as many unvaccinated will also not get COVID. The easiest thing to look at now is specifically hospitalizations as the number of unvaccinated people make up almost 99% of hospitalizations.
Makes sense.

Are we then confusing effectiveness of the vaccine with ability to stop transmission? I've never doubted the effectiveness of the vaccine, but now you have our dumbass CDC Director saying they can't stop transmission which directly contradicts the RRR of 95% as you have defined it.

In other words, if you get it the vaccine is going to help reduce the symptoms and severity of it, but they don't do much in the way of keeping you from getting it according to her. If the latter isn't true, then we need to fire Walensky and get someone in the job that is competent.


I stopped listening to the CDC director after her crying meltdown a few months ago, but I don't understand why she is saying this.

There is data from the trials showing the vaccine can prevent transmission - not 100%, but I would say any reduction is better than none.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00450-z

Most of the data is from the AstraZeneca trials because collecting the additional data to determine the vaccine's effect on transmission was costly and time consuming, and if IIRC, Pfizer and Moderna opted not to do it (at least initially).
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXTransplant • 12:58p, 8/7/21
AG
I think the only answer is because she's incompetent. She has no business being in that role.
Reply Quote
1
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.