google-site-verification=EzRt-ZmNlc4J5RNLXiuJpAEGjNviG678nNB1w49cgZg Jump to content
DeeCee

Coronavirus | COVID-19 | Global Pandemic | PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION TO THIS THREAD

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AndyK said:

17% of the serious Covid cases in Israel are patients that have received at least the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

 

That's about the same percentage of the population that has received the vaccine.

 

This is not good news.

So, that sucks if true...do you have a source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

So, that sucks if true...do you have a source?

It is to be somewhat expected, patient vaccinated could developed a false sense of protection and start taking risk (before the 2-3 weeks it take for the antibodies to ramp up and develop some) and for a while there is little reason why they should get less infected if they do not take extra precaution versus the rest of society.

Edited by Barnack
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AndyK said:

17% of the serious Covid cases in Israel are patients that have received at least the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

 

That's about the same percentage of the population that has received the vaccine.

 

This is not good news.

You know it takes atleast 2 weeks after the first jab before immune system starts ramping up against the virus? If youre infected before that the vaccine does`ent help one bit

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AndyK said:

17% of the serious Covid cases in Israel are patients that have received at least the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

 

That's about the same percentage of the population that has received the vaccine.

 

This is not good news.

It's also not bad news. At least not necessarily.  I looked for a source of this and near as I can tell it was a statement from an Israeli health official with no sort of further information.  How long had they had the first doses before being diagnosed?  Was it in expected parameters for efficiency of the first dose?

 

Doing a quick check to refresh my memory, the Pfizer vaccine was supposed to be around 50% effective after the first dose with protection being meaningfully observed only after 12 days from the first dosage.  And even then, as the article notes, that's a little fuzzy. So how many of these infections occurred after that 12 day window?

 

Which brings me to a roundabout point.  There is a serious messaging problem going on with the vaccine with far too many folks, inside and outside government, trying to downplay the effectiveness of vaccines:

 

 

Whether it's because of the "if it bleeds, it leads" nature of reporting, an increased cynicism about the world among many of the folks in the news industry (as well as in government), or because of the inherent cautiousness of the medical world in general, there really is something of an amplification of the "bad news" out there and not nearly enough of the good.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Barnack said:

It is to be somewhat expected, patient vaccinated could developed a false sense of protection and start taking risk (before the 2-3 weeks it take for the antibodies to ramp up and develop some) and for a while there is little reason why they should get less infected if they do not take extra precaution versus the rest of society.

Agree. They have been at it for 4 weeks now. Lets be patient 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Porthos said:

It's also not bad news. At least not necessarily.  I looked for a source of this and near as I can tell it was a statement from an Israeli health official with no sort of further information.  How long had they had the first doses before being diagnosed?  Was it in expected parameters for efficiency of the first dose?

 

Doing a quick check to refresh my memory, the Pfizer vaccine was supposed to be around 50% effective after the first dose with protection being meaningfully observed only after 12 days from the first dosage.  And even then, as the article notes, that's a little fuzzy. So how many of these infections occurred after that 12 day window?

I first saw this about a week ago, and basically there's nothing inconsistent with these results from the trial data. Most of the 17% who got infected did so within two weeks of receiving the vaccine. If I recall correctly only about a quarter of the observed infections occurred after the 12 day window of the first dose.

The Pfizer/Moderna vaccines are about as effective as any vaccine can be, at 95% efficacy. It's worth noting the vaccine is very nearly 100% effective against preventing severe COVID.

From the NYT article linked above:

Quote

Of the 32,000 people who received the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine in a research trial, do you want to guess how many contracted a severe Covid case? One.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jason said:

I first saw this about a week ago, and basically there's nothing inconsistent with these results from the trial data. Most of the 17% who got infected did so within two weeks of receiving the vaccine. If I recall correctly only about a quarter of the observed infections occurred after the 12 day window of the first dose.

The Pfizer/Moderna vaccines are about as effective as any vaccine can be, at 95% efficacy. It's worth noting the vaccine is very nearly 100% effective against preventing severe COVID.

From the NYT article linked above:

 

Quote

Of the 32,000 people who received the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine in a research trial, do you want to guess how many contracted a severe Covid case? One.

 

 

The only thing I would be cautious about is how "severe covid case" was defined.  I.e. is it x-amount of days after the second dose? 1st dose?  The language there was a little imprecise for my liking, but I do agree overall with what the journalist was saying.  I mean, obviously as I posted the link and all in the first place. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Porthos said:

The only thing I would be cautious about is how "severe covid case" was defined.  I.e. is it x-amount of days after the second dose? 1st dose?  The language there was a little imprecise for my liking, but I do agree overall with what the journalist was saying.  I mean, obviously as I posted the link and all in the first place. 


I presume he used the same definitions of "severe" that were used in the published peer-reviewed articles of the vaccine data, and basically the same definition used by the FDA.

 

For Pfizer:

Quote

Severe Covid-19 is defined by the FDA as confirmed Covid-19 with one of the following additional features: clinical signs at rest that are indicative of severe systemic illness; respiratory failure; evidence of shock; significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death. Details are provided in the protocol.


For Moderna:

Quote

severe Covid-19 as defined by one of the following criteria: respiratory rate of 30 or more breaths per minute; heart rate at or exceeding 125 beats per minute; oxygen saturation at 93% or less while the participant was breathing ambient air at sea level or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen below 300 mm Hg; respiratory failure; acute respiratory distress syndrome; evidence of shock (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure <60 mm Hg, or a need for vasopressors); clinically significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death.


These two definitions aren't actually different, the Moderna definition explicitly defines the clinical signs that are indicative of systemic illness, respiratory failure, and shock rather than assuming the reader's familiarity or willingness to look it up in the supplementary material.

The real problem is that severe cases weren't common enough that you can really assign any statistical certainly to the degree that they were prevented. For the Moderna vaccine, the placebo group had 30 severe cases and there were none in the vaccinated group. For the Pfizer vaccine, the placebo group had 10 severe cases, and there was one in the vaccinated group. This does NOT mean that the Pfizer vaccine is less effective against preventing severe COVID - that one case could be just very bad luck.

Generally speaking, vaccines reduce the severity of illness even when they fail to prevent it completely, and given the high general efficacy of both vaccines it's reasonable to expect they will both make severe illness very rare.

Edited by Jason
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jason said:


I presume he used the same definitions of "severe" that were used in the published peer-reviewed articles of the vaccine data, and basically the same definition used by the FDA.

 

For Pfizer:


For Moderna:


These two definitions aren't actually different, the Moderna definition explcitly defines the clinical signs that are indicative of systemic illness, respiratory failure, and shock rather than assuming the reader's familiarity. (To be fair, I suspect the majority of typical readers of the New England Journal of Medicine would have that familiarity.)

The real problem is that severe cases weren't common enough that you can really assign any statistical certainly to the degree that they were prevented. For the Moderna vaccine, the placebo group had 30 severe cases and there were none in the vaccinated group. For the Pfizer vaccine, the placebo group had 10 severe cases, and there was one in the vaccinated group. This does NOT mean that the Pfizer vaccine is less effective against preventing severe COVID - that one case could be just very bad luck.

Generally speaking, vaccines reduce the severity of illness even when they fail to prevent it completely, and given the high general efficacy of both vaccines it's reasonable to expect they will both make severe illness very rare.

No no, I get all of that, but I might have been imprecise.  What I was talking about was the following sentence:

 

"Of the 32,000 people who received the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine in a research trial, do you want to guess how many contracted a severe Covid case? One."

 

All I am trying to figure out is how long after they received their dosages that the one person contracted a "severe covid case",  Some time after the first?  The second?  A day or two later?  A month?  That sort of thing.

 

But it's also something of a rabbit hole that isn't that particularly important so if it isn't easily found out, no big deal.   

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eric Gardner said:

 

 

That's a dangerous idiotic headline there is no evidence that variant is vaccine resistant. It's like the headline indicating that the vaccine may cause deaths when there in fact was no correlation at all

Edited by cdsacken
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

about the deaths in Norway

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Porthos said:

It's also not bad news. At least not necessarily.  I looked for a source of this and near as I can tell it was a statement from an Israeli health official with no sort of further information.  How long had they had the first doses before being diagnosed?  Was it in expected parameters for efficiency of the first dose?

 

Doing a quick check to refresh my memory, the Pfizer vaccine was supposed to be around 50% effective after the first dose with protection being meaningfully observed only after 12 days from the first dosage.  And even then, as the article notes, that's a little fuzzy. So how many of these infections occurred after that 12 day window?

 

Which brings me to a roundabout point.  There is a serious messaging problem going on with the vaccine with far too many folks, inside and outside government, trying to downplay the effectiveness of vaccines:

 

 

Whether it's because of the "if it bleeds, it leads" nature of reporting, an increased cynicism about the world among many of the folks in the news industry (as well as in government), or because of the inherent cautiousness of the medical world in general, there really is something of an amplification of the "bad news" out there and not nearly enough of the good.

From Pfizers own trial data....

 

The vaccine was almost fully effective 7..10 days after the first dose.

 

Eov-ML8-PXMAIkca.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Austria, some discussion has arisen about people (mostly local politicians) getting their shots early. We're still in vaccination phase one, meaning nursing homes (staff+patients) and other people >85yr old, but often there's a few doses not getting used (usually 6 shots from one vial, and some simply did order too much) so they're vaccinating other personnel, too, and it seems local politicians and their families are always first in line when it comes to those "extra" shots.

 

personally, I think it's not much of an issue, in fact, I can see a positive longterm effect since people now get envious about the inoculations which should counteract the anti-vaxxer's propaganda a bit. Envy is always a strong incentive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IndustriousAngel said:

In Austria, some discussion has arisen about people (mostly local politicians) getting their shots early. We're still in vaccination phase one, meaning nursing homes (staff+patients) and other people >85yr old, but often there's a few doses not getting used (usually 6 shots from one vial, and some simply did order too much) so they're vaccinating other personnel, too, and it seems local politicians and their families are always first in line when it comes to those "extra" shots.

 

personally, I think it's not much of an issue, in fact, I can see a positive longterm effect since people now get envious about the inoculations which should counteract the anti-vaxxer's propaganda a bit. Envy is always a strong incentive.

I am afraid that effect might take some time till it gets an effect on part of some anti-people.

 

If they do things like vaccinated people getting to visit free-time activity places before the not vaccinated (like some countries seem to plan) a few more might follow, a few of the antis will feel like martyrs and go on a even worse crusade of the anti-socials

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today during the afternoon the heads of our states and country confer about eg the actual lockdown.

News think it will be extended for two weeks to 14 February with even stricter rules. 

As here we celebrate carnival at 15 and 16 February everywhere (in a few states the parties start way earlier, in a few it starts a week or so before Carnival Tuesday, the date varies ~ 2 weeks per year) I think if they extend they should extend till including the 16 February

Edited by terrestrial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

Today during the afternoon the heads of our states and country confer about eg the actual lockdown.

News think it will be extended for two weeks to 14 February with even stricter rules. 

As here we celebrate carnival at 15 and 16 February everywhere (in a few states the parties start way earlier, in a few it starts a week or so before Carnival Tuesday, the date varies ~ 2 weeks per year) I think if they extend they should extend till including the 16 February

The fact that this winter there would be no Carnival anywhere was obvious even in October, lockdown or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, IndustriousAngel said:

The fact that this winter there would be no Carnival anywhere was obvious even in October, lockdown or not.

Obviously, but there are always way too many looking out for excuses, I am afraid if they really pick the 14 too many will see it as opportunity to party, meet, find excuses, like see, its not bad anymore, its lifted and such.

I do not trust the social continence and willingness to think through of a big part of the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.