I am proven wrong then. I still won't be having the vaccine just yet. My body, my rules.
Mix and Match Covid Vaccination
Re: Mix and Match Covid Vaccination
This was part of a review of the academic papers published in The Lancet by the Oxford/AstraZeneca trial team.
It also covered the December Pfizer publication.
It showed what 90% efficacy means vs what people think it means.
On October 21st, 2020, associate editor of the BMJ, Peter Doshi, wrote an insightful article about the aims of the trials that were at phase 3 stage in the race for a vaccine.
Doshi quoted Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, who said, “Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things… first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.”
Doshi concurred that we want the vaccine to prevent serious illness and transmission.
However, he explained that the current trials are not designed to test either.
None of the Pfizer, Oxford, Moderna, Janssen, Sinopharm and Sinovac trials are designed to test reduction in severe Covid-19 (hospital admission, ICU, or death) or interruption of transmission.
They are all focused on detection of a positive test and at least one symptom of Covid-19 and the comparison of those results between the vaccine and placebo arm.
Doshi also noted that the trials have not included immunocompromised people.
The November Lancet paper reported on 240 people over 70 years old, who were included in the UK COV002 trial.
Those with severe or uncontrolled comorbidities (respiratory, heart, kidney, liver, gastrointestinal disease, diabetes – HbA1c >58, cancer, autoimmune disease, vascular disease, and other conditions) were excluded.
The vaccine roll-out is starting with the oldest and most vulnerable people when the trials have been undertaken on the young and healthy.
The first results from the Pfizer and Oxford/AstraZeneca trials on that efficacy outcome (positive test and at least one symptom) have been reported above.
The December Pfizer paper reported 95% efficacy based on 170 cases and the Oxford/AstraZeneca December paper reported 70% efficacy based on 131 cases. The numbers 95% and 70% are relative differences.
The absolute difference was 0.84% for Pfizer and 1.2% for the Oxford/AstraZeneca results.
We don’t know for how long any protection might last.
The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) is an important measure of the value of an intervention.
The NNT is the number of patients, on average, who would need to receive experimental treatment (instead of control treatment) for one additional patient to not have the study outcome.
The NNT for the Pfizer drug was 119 people.
(It was 286 people at the time of the press release when 94 cases had been reported on.)
The NNT for the Oxford/AstraZeneca drug was 83 people.
If you stopped 100 intelligent people in the street and asked them what 90% vaccine efficacy means, they will likely say that it means 90% of people vaccinated won’t get the virus.
The fact is that 99% of people who were given the placebo didn’t get the virus.
The intelligent person in the street won’t realise that it means approximately 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid 1 case.
They might think those vaccinated won’t have a bad outcome and can no longer transmit the virus.
They probably won’t realise that the trials were not even designed to test these key issues.
On the one hand, getting to vaccine approval in the same number of months that normally takes years is an extraordinary feat.
On the other hand, the gap between what these vaccines can do and what people think and hope they can do is tragically wide.
It also covered the December Pfizer publication.
It showed what 90% efficacy means vs what people think it means.
On October 21st, 2020, associate editor of the BMJ, Peter Doshi, wrote an insightful article about the aims of the trials that were at phase 3 stage in the race for a vaccine.
Doshi quoted Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, who said, “Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things… first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.”
Doshi concurred that we want the vaccine to prevent serious illness and transmission.
However, he explained that the current trials are not designed to test either.
None of the Pfizer, Oxford, Moderna, Janssen, Sinopharm and Sinovac trials are designed to test reduction in severe Covid-19 (hospital admission, ICU, or death) or interruption of transmission.
They are all focused on detection of a positive test and at least one symptom of Covid-19 and the comparison of those results between the vaccine and placebo arm.
Doshi also noted that the trials have not included immunocompromised people.
The November Lancet paper reported on 240 people over 70 years old, who were included in the UK COV002 trial.
Those with severe or uncontrolled comorbidities (respiratory, heart, kidney, liver, gastrointestinal disease, diabetes – HbA1c >58, cancer, autoimmune disease, vascular disease, and other conditions) were excluded.
The vaccine roll-out is starting with the oldest and most vulnerable people when the trials have been undertaken on the young and healthy.
The first results from the Pfizer and Oxford/AstraZeneca trials on that efficacy outcome (positive test and at least one symptom) have been reported above.
The December Pfizer paper reported 95% efficacy based on 170 cases and the Oxford/AstraZeneca December paper reported 70% efficacy based on 131 cases. The numbers 95% and 70% are relative differences.
The absolute difference was 0.84% for Pfizer and 1.2% for the Oxford/AstraZeneca results.
We don’t know for how long any protection might last.
The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) is an important measure of the value of an intervention.
The NNT is the number of patients, on average, who would need to receive experimental treatment (instead of control treatment) for one additional patient to not have the study outcome.
The NNT for the Pfizer drug was 119 people.
(It was 286 people at the time of the press release when 94 cases had been reported on.)
The NNT for the Oxford/AstraZeneca drug was 83 people.
If you stopped 100 intelligent people in the street and asked them what 90% vaccine efficacy means, they will likely say that it means 90% of people vaccinated won’t get the virus.
The fact is that 99% of people who were given the placebo didn’t get the virus.
The intelligent person in the street won’t realise that it means approximately 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid 1 case.
They might think those vaccinated won’t have a bad outcome and can no longer transmit the virus.
They probably won’t realise that the trials were not even designed to test these key issues.
On the one hand, getting to vaccine approval in the same number of months that normally takes years is an extraordinary feat.
On the other hand, the gap between what these vaccines can do and what people think and hope they can do is tragically wide.
Re: Mix and Match Covid Vaccination
Link please?
By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail - Benjamin Franklin
Re: Mix and Match Covid Vaccination
Also, a quick google on the author's name reveals he's a bit of an anti-vaxxer. I've not dug into him (Peter Doshi) any more than a cursory google search, as I have actual work to do and i'm not a researcher. But this is the blog post I read on him:
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skeptic ... authority/
another one here on the same site:
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skeptic ... authority/
As I said, I have not dug into him (which is a very very important step when you are researching something), but it's interesting nonetheless.
Some basic and minimum steps when researching anything (i've not done any of these on the above two links, so you need to apply your own scrutiny to them and the site on which they are contained)
1.) Take each article, one by one and look into the source (author, publisher and funder)
2.) Critique the writing in the articles for:
a) logical fallacies
b) cognitive distortions
c) plain old inaccuracies
3.) Follow the trail of referenced sources and apply the same scrutiny to each of them
4.) Ask yourself why the publisher would publish that data and/or article.
As far as I am aware, we have no epidemiologists, immunologists, microbiologists, virologists, or public health experts as members here (if we did, they're probably a bit preoccupied right now) so we need to be very careful how we discuss vaccines and treatments, particularly while we are in a pandemic. We absolutely cannot use this forum to try to persuade, or influence others on decisions regarding individuals health. None of us are qualified or experienced in the related scientific fields to do so.
If anyone doesn't wish to have a vaccine, that's their own choice, but you shouldn't try to influence others with your beliefs. Well, you can if you wish. But not on this forum. Please.
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skeptic ... authority/
another one here on the same site:
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skeptic ... authority/
As I said, I have not dug into him (which is a very very important step when you are researching something), but it's interesting nonetheless.
Some basic and minimum steps when researching anything (i've not done any of these on the above two links, so you need to apply your own scrutiny to them and the site on which they are contained)
1.) Take each article, one by one and look into the source (author, publisher and funder)
2.) Critique the writing in the articles for:
a) logical fallacies
b) cognitive distortions
c) plain old inaccuracies
3.) Follow the trail of referenced sources and apply the same scrutiny to each of them
4.) Ask yourself why the publisher would publish that data and/or article.
As far as I am aware, we have no epidemiologists, immunologists, microbiologists, virologists, or public health experts as members here (if we did, they're probably a bit preoccupied right now) so we need to be very careful how we discuss vaccines and treatments, particularly while we are in a pandemic. We absolutely cannot use this forum to try to persuade, or influence others on decisions regarding individuals health. None of us are qualified or experienced in the related scientific fields to do so.
If anyone doesn't wish to have a vaccine, that's their own choice, but you shouldn't try to influence others with your beliefs. Well, you can if you wish. But not on this forum. Please.
By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail - Benjamin Franklin
-
diamond lil
- Posts: 9888
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:42 pm
- Location: Scotland.
Re: Mix and Match Covid Vaccination
Scotland not having the mixed vaccines. Scotgov announced today.