Pfizer's Vaccine Offers Strong Protection After First Dose (nytimes.com) 190
The coronavirus vaccine made by Pfizer and BioNTech provides strong protection against Covid-19 within about 10 days of the first dose, according to documents published on Tuesday by the Food and Drug Administration before a meeting of its vaccine advisory group. From a report: The finding is one of several significant new results featured in the briefing materials, which include more than 100 pages of data analyses from the agency and from Pfizer. Last month, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that their two-dose vaccine had an efficacy rate of 95 percent after two doses administered three weeks apart. The new analyses show that the protection starts kicking in far earlier. What's more, the vaccine worked well regardless of a volunteer's race, weight or age. While the trial did not find any serious adverse events caused by the vaccine, many participants did experience aches, fevers and other side effects. "This is what an A+ report card looks like for a vaccine," said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University.
On Thursday, F.D.A.'s vaccine advisory panel will discuss these materials in advance of a vote on whether to recommend authorization of Pfizer and BioNTech's vaccine. Pfizer and BioNTech began a large-scale clinical trial in July, recruiting 44,000 people in the United States, Brazil and Argentina. Half of the volunteers got the vaccine, and half got the placebo. New coronavirus cases quickly tapered off in the vaccinated group of volunteers about 10 days after the first dose, according to one graph in the briefing materials. In the placebo group, cases kept steadily increasing.
On Thursday, F.D.A.'s vaccine advisory panel will discuss these materials in advance of a vote on whether to recommend authorization of Pfizer and BioNTech's vaccine. Pfizer and BioNTech began a large-scale clinical trial in July, recruiting 44,000 people in the United States, Brazil and Argentina. Half of the volunteers got the vaccine, and half got the placebo. New coronavirus cases quickly tapered off in the vaccinated group of volunteers about 10 days after the first dose, according to one graph in the briefing materials. In the placebo group, cases kept steadily increasing.
Bring it asap (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump will now spend the entire remainder of his term claiming 100% of the credit for this.
(...although his proposed solution was anal bleach just a few months ago)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Trump will now spend the entire remainder of his life claiming 100% of the credit for this.
FTFY.
And you will spend said interval spluttering all over your phone every time he does, which is amusing.
Re: (Score:2)
So, his emphasis on pushing creation and distribution of a vaccine (including spending to do so), doesn't count.
"Spending"?
Oh, of course they took his bundle of (taxpayer's) money and said thanks.
But if you think they weren't already racing to make a vaccine it's you who's living in a dream world. This vaccine is worth a fortune in the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
The "anal bleach" statement is too much.
"Too much" isn't the phrase I would use. I watched the presser, several times. It really sounded to me like he was proposing to inject bleach. That would do far more harm than anal bleach.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I told my doctor that when he thought it was ready, I'm up for it, because he he's the medical professional, and if I don't trust his professional judgement, either I have the wrong doctor or he has the wrong patient. He'll at least understand the executive summary of the studies, which is far more than I will.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, you getting the vaccine won't change the situation. What we need to do is campaign for wide spread acceptance of the vaccine to change the situation.
Re:So, if it provides protection after first dose. (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably a high percentage of people with only marginal protection after the first dose or some lack of durability in the immunity acquired without a second dose.
I had the Shingrix vaccine this year, the first dose had no side effects besides some expected minor soreness at the site of injection, the second dose gave me mild flu-like symptoms for about 12 hours. My wild-ass guess is that the first dose primed my immune system to provide some immune response, but the second one really made it permanent.
It does raise the question as to whether there's some value in prioritizing first doses of the Pfizer vaccine as broadly as possible in the first available batches vs. getting a lot of people second doses before others get first doses. But it likely depends on the science behind two doses and how long is too long before a second dose.
Regardless I'd bet its baked into the planning of this anyway, and maybe as they find more out they'll be able to delay vaccinating low-vulnerability people with the second dose in favor of more first and maybe second doses to more vulnerable people.
It'd be great if the first dose was as beneficial as they describe, it could really stymie the spread of the pandemic if there's a good chunk of people with useful protection from one dose.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I"m not in ANY hurry to be the first in line.
I'm the type that doesn't check out the temperature of the water with both feet.
I plan to stay hunkered down for a bit and see how it goes for the folks that are first in line and see how they do.
I've had bad reactions to shots/immunizations in the past, so, I'm going to want to see what the effects are good/bad by the various types of vaccines when unleashed on the full general public.
I plan to get it, but w
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that there's so many potential at risk people that unless you're over 50 with comorbidities or immunocompromised you'll have no choice but to sit back and wait and see what happens.
I'm kind of curious how much (if any) choice there will be in terms of which vaccine you can get. My guess is "almost none" unless you're rich or have some diagnosed condition statistically correlated with vaccination complications. Supply constraints will probably make it it a take or wait (indefinitely) situation.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds suspiciously like "Papers Please"??
I hope it doesn't come to that.
I wonder if it legally even could?
Re: (Score:2)
As for requirements within one's country, some vaccination is thankfully mandatory for enrolling your kids in school in some countries. It is a given that an adult already has most vaccines, so it is not a specific requirement for employment or getting some services; maybe COVID19 vaccine will be, from now on.
Re: (Score:2)
Not talking about "other countries"...ju
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you can legally be forced into this...if they do try, I"m guessing thousands of lawsuits will result, I"m guessing the SCOTUS would see that.
And yet, each year, millions of people are forced to pay for something [medicareconsumer.com] they may not want or need.
That US Constitution was wisely constructed to maximize the individuals' rights.
And yet, every "constitutionalist" Supreme Court Justice has hacked away at individual rights, giving more power to the government and businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it be illegal for a business to refuse service to the unvaccinated?
Re: So, if it provides protection after first dose (Score:2)
The initial batches states are getting are barely 20-30% of the required amount needed to cover healthcare workers. Let alone the first group elderly after that they can do approximately a few thousand every 2 weeks.
They are having trouble scaling up production and other usual production bottlenecks.
I will get the vaccine when I can my wife is an rn at a nursing home. To protect those patients I have to protect my family.
Or as easily explained 9 people working on 9 projects. One person uses glitter. How
Re:So, if it provides protection after first dose. (Score:5, Informative)
This is the first mRNA vaccine, so there's obviously very little data, but I suspect the mRNA vaccines are going to have far less side effects than traditional vaccines.
A lot of traditional vaccines are based on a live virus. They try to deactivate/remove the parts that harm you, leaving a virus that shouldn't do any harm, but still leave enough virus that your immune system can learn to react to it. Sometimes people with a weak immune system react badly to this. Sometimes people have allergic reactions to the process used to create these viruses (they're often grown in eggs).
The mRNA vaccines are as bare minimal as a vaccine can get. There isn't anything extra in the vaccine. You're creating the mRNA strand directly with lab equipment. You're not growing it in anything. The mRNA codes for just the protein spike of the virus, which by itself is harmless. There's just so much less going on. The main risk here seems to be in transporting and handling the vaccine, as it needs to be kept at extremely low temperatures to be stable long term.
Re: (Score:3)
You car has Airbags, why do you need to put on a seat belt?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather smash my face into an airbag and deal with possible light burns or lacerations than have it smashed and ripped apart by the steering wheel cover or the metal frame of the wheel itself if the crash is that severe.
People like you are great. "I don't want to wear a mask, it sucks to walk around and see everyone with masks on and my glasses fog up" *dies from COVID* - "Seatbelts can prevent you from exiting a car if it's on fire" *flies through the windshield after broadsiding a car that ran a red l
Re: (Score:2)
"Seatbelts can prevent you from exiting a car if it's on fire" *flies through the windshield after broadsiding a car that ran a red light*
Actually, your car is rarely ever on fire (doesn't happen outside movies and firefighters demonstrating their skills), and if there is an accident, you are more likely to be in a good shape and able to get out even if your seatbelt tries to stop you, where without seatbelt you are two messed up to get out.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps it is not well known, but airbags can be fatal for people lacking in stature.
Further, while the parent post didnt state it outright, there is a clue that that person disabled it for that reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Sir your skills of deduction are legendary. You better alert the media with that bomb you just dropped.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to bet THAT won't be terribly popular if this is widely publicized.
Re: So, if it provides protection after first dose (Score:2)
I'll save the Q-Anon folks some time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'll save the Q-Anon folks some time (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, you missed the popular claim that a tracking chip will be injected into you along with the vaccine, and also the popular claim that the vaccine works by permanently reprogramming your DNA. Also your post was completely lacking in petty racism.
People are quick to believe nonsense whenever it suits their biases. Since the brain is a neural-net, it relies primarily on high-level pattern recognition more than point-by-point analysis in order to determine what seems true. A cognitive process like this allows for very quick snap judgments that are usually correct when the subject matter is familiar. This is a necessary ability for hunter-gatherers, but not so much for modern humans. Now, it does at least as much harm as good, if not more.
So, otherwise-intelligent people are quick to believe this stuff, because something about each claim aligns with a bias they have, and in-depth point-by-point analysis is hard and costly and requires them to challenge their own biases (which everyone hates to do).
I wonder if this is something we will just "grow out of," as a species, someday.
Re:I'll save the Q-Anon folks some time (Score:4, Funny)
I haven't seen many signs of such a trend here in the US.
Brainphishing kills (Score:4, Informative)
I think the first comment in this thread (from LatencyKills) was legitimately funny as parody, but the overall topic is not funny. For example, it helped drive the American response to Covid-19 that has caused and is continuing to cause so many needless deaths.
People will NOT grow out of Qanon beliefs because those beliefs are being deliberately cultivated. It's psychological warfare fertilized by "big data" mountains of personal information. I propose "brainphishing" as a label for what is going on here.
It's not that "they" can push my button and make me do anything they want me to do, but rather that they can identify the buttons which are widely available and push them statistically. Starting from "Everyone believes what they want to believe" they can look for certain people who want to believe certain things and then relatively easily persuade those "easy targets" to believe other things. The Qanon stuff is clearly based on some religious BS that was spreading around America 40 years ago, but it's been deliberately mutated and ramped up in extremely dangerous directions and now it's worse than kudzu. (I spent an entire semester studying the original stuff in Texas. At base, the religious nutjobs do NOT believe in separation of church and state.)
Hmm... I want to clarify the "they" doing the brainphishing, but without limiting it to Q. That's a fake identity, and most likely a committee, to boot. I think I can point at one leading practitioner of brainphishing, however. Putin is using brainphishing against his enemies, who he equates with Russia's enemies on the ground that “L'Etat c'est moi.” (But it's disputed that Louis the XIV ever said that.) My latest evidence is The Road to Unfreedom by Timothy D. Snyder.
But another part of the problem is the TL;DR response of most Americans. Not a problem for brainphishing, because brainphishing focuses on short jabs at the easy marks. Mostly video jabs these days, thanks to YouTube and TikTok and related weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if this is something we will just "grow out of," as a species, someday.
Probably not, because conspiracy theories are fun.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if this is something we will just "grow out of," as a species, someday.
The cognitive biases that enable conspiracy theories are wired deeply into the structure of our brain, because up until about 400 years ago or so, they were highly effective, in evolutionary terms, and even today they're pretty effective shortcuts most of the time. Since that means that they were actively good for 99.98% of genus Homo's history, and even longer if you want to reach back to our pre-Homo ancestors, I'd say it's safe bet that, no, we won't just "grow out of" it on anything less than evolutiona
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you missed the popular claim that a tracking chip will be injected into you along with the vaccine
I heard a worse one, since people figured out that a tracking chip wouldn't fit through an injection needle: There is metal in the vaccine that combines inside your body to create a 5G antenna.
If that was the case, then Qualcomm would send out a ninja team to hunt down and kill everyone involved, to keep their multi billion dollar business running.
Re: (Score:2)
So, otherwise-intelligent people are quick to believe this stuff, because something about each claim aligns with a bias they have, and in-depth point-by-point analysis is hard and costly and requires them to challenge their own biases (which everyone hates to do).
I wonder if this is something we will just "grow out of," as a species, someday.
My opinion is that it's not just difficult to challenge your own biases in terms of energy or concentration etc. For whatever reason, people start out with an ideology and keep it for some time. Maybe their parents indoctrinated them. Maybe it allowed them to make friends at one point. The longer they've stuck with it the more entrenched they get because they can't come to terms with having been so wrong for so long along with all the decisions they've made as a result. It's kind of like the sunk-cost falla
Re:I'll save the Q-Anon folks some time (Score:4, Funny)
Don't forget that BLM and antifa are just trying to use this vaccine to weaken the strong hardworking righties as part of the conspiracy to destroy their dream suburban lifestyle and turn everyone into trans vegan socialist animal rights activist environmentalists who drive Priuses and cry when someone uses a plastic straw.
Re: (Score:2)
And once the suburbs are weakened Biden is going to use eminent domain to seize houses and build public housing in their place.
Re: (Score:3)
Get a grip.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a plot by Bill Gates to control the world by chipping grandma!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so that was a false flag operation to divert attention from the real conspiracy. Clever.
We know it works (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't the safety data exactly what this article and the other recent news reports have been covering?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No. What this article is covering is efficacy: how well the vaccine works to protect you against COVID-19. That says nothing about safety: what side effects will the vaccine potentially cause down the line? Long term, does the vaccine cause cancer, reproductive harm, seizures, narcolepsy, paralysis, death, etc?
Not all past vaccines turned out to be 100% safe. Take the polio vaccines for example.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't have long term data, I think that's a given. They intend to monitor for 2 years, but obviously that's a work in progress. I suspect my employer will not let me WFH for 2 years while we wait... so I'm mostly hoping for a strong initial ramp of people who are willing to risk it, or work in areas where their employers will give them no choice, and hope it's another 6 months before I am even able to obtain it. That's probably 9 months, and a few million people? It's all we've got.
But yes, I would lik
Re: (Score:2)
It is an mRNA vaccine that only causes your cells to produce spike proteins.
WHAT SAFTY DATA?
More save than that a vaccine can not be.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So far we had 30,000 test candidates (in Germany, no idea about other countries). If you want to test more ... the longer it takes to start using it :D
Kind of chicken and egg problem.
Re: (Score:2)
So far we had 30,000 test candidates (in Germany, no idea about other countries).
OK, where's the safety data on those test candidates?
Re: (Score:2)
OK, where's the safety data on those test candidates?
That information is released to the FDA and other world bodies that do pretty much the same thing as the US' FDA. That information then has to be processed and put into that agency's format for data release. THEN, that has to go through an approval process. THEN, it's released to the public. Pfizer, since that's who this article is about and so I'm guessing that's who you are interested in, submitted their results to the governing bodies sometime late November. It'll take at least a month easily before
Re: (Score:2)
The typical stuff, light fever, pain at injection, fatigue.
No idea if there are any "spread sheets" of data published.
I assume to know about those you need to be in "medical circles".
Re: (Score:2)
ok this should be published, and I want to look at it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
They are in German and you would not grasp them anyway, even if they where in english.
Idiot.
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, you aren't the only person impacted by that decision. By choosing to forgo the vaccine and contract the virus instead, you are increasing the exposure level for everyone around you. Every stranger you pass at the supermarket is potentially being put at-risk because of YOUR rugged individualism.
So, if you were the only person impacted by this decision, I would say "Go for it!" both from the perspective of individual liberty AND from an appreciation of the benefits of selective pressure on a species.
But in this case you are endangering others. That means you have a broken moral compass. I can't legally force you to do anything but I can sure judge you as a selfish moral reprobate. Your attitude is exactly why I think it is ok to disallow unvaccinated children from attending public schools.
Re: (Score:2)
But he would only impact other people who also chose not to vaccinate, so...
Re: (Score:2)
>"as if their citizens were part of a huge clinical trial?"
Yes, that is the idea. They will test on the first groups and expand the trial and the widespread vaccinations if the results are good.
The production and distribution issues will limit how fast it can be ramped up. There will be plenty of volunteers as well as those who prefer to wait first.
Who else are they going to try it on besides real people that are citizen's of some country?
Testing on monkeys doesn't prove much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the time the get around to vaccinating you, they will have plenty of test data from the few million who chose to go first (and who met whatever the priority criteria is). Waiting for animal trials will cause more loss of life than proceeding quickly with the associated risks.
Re: (Score:2)
Estimated Study Completion Date: January 29, 2023
The experiment was set to end when a certain number of participants got COVID. The length of time was variable, since they couldn't actually infect anyone, they had to wait for them to get it naturally. Lots of people have been getting COVID, so the experiment ended earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious, what you agreed with there.
How would a person be "unable to function unless you can demonstrate you've been vaccinated"?
From what I'm reading into that, it sounds dangerously akin to "Papers Please"....?
Re: (Score:2)
Source Material (Score:2)
Based on the cumulative incidence curve for the all-available efficacy population after Dose 1, (Figure 2), COVID-19 disease onset appears to occur similarly for both BNT162b2 and placebo groups until approximately 14 days after Dose 1, at which time point, the curves diverge, with more cases accumulating in the placebo group than in the BNT162b2 group, and there does not appear to be evidence of waning protection during the follow-up time of approximately 2 months following the second dose that is being evaluated at this point in time.
Does first dose secure second? (Score:2)
My concern is I go to lengths to get the first dose, and the second dose that's supposed to be administered within 15 (or however many) days suddenly becomes unavailable. Without some assurance that the second dose is secured by virtue of getting the first, I doubt I'll step up until the vaccination hullabaloo (read: shit show) has passed. You know... 2022.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the efficacy of the first dose alone seems to be around 80%, I wouldn't worry too much about that.
Re: (Score:2)
With an unpowered chip, they'd have to put active transmitters everywhere. We'll deal with it when we see that. Plenty of people with the knowledge and means to discover new EMF popping up all over.
Re: (Score:2)
With an unpowered chip, they'd have to put active transmitters everywhere. We'll deal with it when we see that. Plenty of people with the knowledge and means to discover new EMF popping up all over.
My dog has a tracking chip. It's a legal requirement for all dogs in the UK to have a tracking chip. A vet has to hold a reader right on her neck where the chip is implanted to read the chip.
So if I'm close enough to read the location from the chip I'm also close enough to know exactly where you are: Right in front of me!
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think that the 5G rollout is doing? It's the means to activate the chip being implanted!
What do you think 4G is doing? It sends out radiation that makes people stupid, gullible, and prone to believe conspiracy theories. And it works, as we know, so you can be sure that 5G will also work.
Re: (Score:2)
wow your tinfoil hat news sites are so much more exciting than reality and real news. there is no chip in the vaccines. calm your tits.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying we have the technology to make a tracking chip small enough to be injected into a human in a vial of Clear Liquid. Which is reliable to last for years, and able to transmit data long distances?
I am sure the guy who invented it said to himself. I made such a break-threw technology and I will use it to secure myself a modest government job. Of course we will also need a huge government infrastructure to build these chips, where they all need to keep secrete on this massive plans. While nor
Re: (Score:2)
under 20 people
Is that referring to age or quantity?
Re: (Score:2)
...this is scary shit, people, and it seems like nobody cares because of mass panic over a simple virus.
Did you try sharing the Facebook Meme you got all your info from with your friends?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, the MRI makers and doctors are all in on the conspiracy.
Don't bother using logic here. There's a conspiracy-based answer for any reasonable objection you might toss out there.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think when chip gets violently ripped out of your body during the MRI because you didn't know it was there before the MRI scan would kind of give it away.
And if they had any kind of shielding around the chip to prevent this from happening, then that would also prevent it from being able to transmit any information.
Re: (Score:2)
Why, it's almost as if he's commenting in bad faith! *drops monocle*
Re:Not in New York (Score:5, Informative)
It's due diligence, and it has nothing to do with Trump. I'm not even sure what link to Trump you claim has anything to do with that decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is what the con artist and his cabal keep claiming. Even today, at the last possible moment, the AG of Texas is suing four states [texastribune.org] because of the "fraud" committed in their elections to prevent the electoral college from confirming Biden's win.
And this is on top of all the other shenanigans the con artist and his idiot supporters keep trying to do.
Where the losers go to jail.
That is what the con artist said he would do Hillary, didn't he? He proudly sa
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the data that we have is *very* useful in predicting the long term success.... that's where the 95% efficacy rate comes from.
What we do not have yet is a lot of that data.
But that doesn't at all alter how useful the data that we do have is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current rate of side effects causing death is 0% among the 44k in the Pfizer vaccine (and also among the 30k in the Moderna vaccine). Nor have there been fatal side effects in ANY of the COVID vaccine candidates, including the Astra Zenaca, the Russian, or the Chinese vaccine candidates.
But even if you assume that 1 out of 75,000 people who take the vaccine will have a fatal side effect, that does not get you close to "millions" of people dying.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but to be fair we should not assume a 1/75k, or even a 1/44k complications. We have to remember what this study is proving specifically. There could still be a 1/20k complication rate, and 1 study with 44k people would would not provide much evidence at all against this. I was told that 21 trials is in general the key to statistical beyond a reasonable doubt certainty. So, !I think the math works in this way! (am completely willing to bow to someone more statistically inclined) if we take 44k/21 ~= 2k.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true from a strict mathematical perspective, but what we already know about vaccines that the mathematical possibility of a 1% death rate is a practical near impossibility.
For example, if you knew nothing about physics and attempted to throw a rock at the moon 75k times, you might conclude that the possibility of your rock thrown at the moon hitting it could be as high a 1%. But knowing what we know about escape velocity, we know the actual chance of your rock hitting the moon is effectively zer
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to start off with, I do think my math is probably off. I know intuitively that the the death rate that the study proved must be somewhat less that 1/44k, but I think my approximation was probably way off. a trial with 44k people probably proves somewhat more than at worse a 1/2K death rate.
That is an interesting point, but at least my understanding is that this is a completely new type of vaccine. not only have we ever had a vaccine for any of this family of viruses, this vaccine is not made in
Re: (Score:2)
Your understanding that "Death is down" is simply not correct. As of October, "excess deaths" over what was normally the case prior to COVID were about 300k:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/... [statnews.com]
Moreover, COVID deaths are way up over the last month. We will soon have pretty good confirmation that the vaccine is preventing deaths as healthcare workers get vaccinated en masse later this month. By mid-February, we will have a good idea of how heathcare worker deathrates compare before/after vaccination.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read that article? The 300K people come from:
To be exact, the researchers reported that 299,028 more people died from Jan. 26 to Oct. 3 this year than on average during the same stretch from 2015 to 2019.
This article seems to run off the assumption that total americans deaths per year stay static, but because of raising populations, aging population, and reduced heath they have been raising each year for a long time.
I think we can do a better calc than that with some very basic raw numbers.
To start off, I do not know macrotrends, but they data is so comprehensive, I am going to trust it. feel free to find a source that contradictions them.
https://www.macr [macrotrends.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of other papers along the same lines, but you have to go look for them because they dont fit the narrative so in general the legacy media will not inform the public:
https://journals.sagepub.com/d... [sagepub.com]
https://notthebee.com/article/... [notthebee.com]
Sample set of stats, lots of countries have raw stats available:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n... [statcan.gc.ca]
One of the most interesting comments from the Johns Hopkins study I find very interesting:
"Consider the following figures- US Total deaths by year per CDC:
2013: 2,596,993
2014: 2,6
Re: (Score:2)
note that my analysis takes into account the 1.12% increase is mortality per person and the millions of more individuals who were part of the US in 2020 vs previous years.
I found a 1% increase over and above this expected total mortality. So I guess it must of been a 2% increase. The interesting side effect of this it that if we solve this 1% mortality spike we will still have the same number of deaths per capita in 2021, as it increases by 1% every year anyways.
Re:Statistics (Score:4, Informative)
Also, my understanding is that if you took a sample of 44k people, and gave them the coronavirus, you would get some of them "experiencing aches, fevers and other side effects" as well. Coronavirus does not even have side effects in many cases. So this article does not make it clear which group even had the worse time of it.
This is a "double blind" trial. [wikipedia.org] 19,965 people got the vaccine, and 20,172 got a placebo [wikipedia.org] All of the information is freely available here. [fda.gov]
Sample statistics can be tricky, particularly if the sample sizes are small, or the experiment is structured poorly. However, at around 10,000 samples, the accuracy in predicting a proportion is within 1% of the actual value. This sample size is double that. While it will be difficult to know exactly what negative effects of the vaccine will be on a population proportion below 1%, the fact this is a controlled experiment tells us how it compares vs placebo. Page 30 of the link I shared above contains that information. The outcomes of the group that received the vaccine was significantly better than the outcome for the group that received the placebo 112 days out.
The Pfizer vaccine may still have risks to some people. However, it's much safer than the alternative, getting COVID-19. All other methods at stopping the disease have failed, so I think we can assume we will all get it eventually. The outstanding question is, who will have a better outcome beyond 112 days? We can't say for sure. My money is on the vaccinated group.
Re: (Score:3)
They why do Pfizer [pfizer.com] and OWS [hhs.gov] both say OWS bought 100M doses back in July? You don't think agreeing in July with Pfizer to spend $1.95 Billion dollars on the first 100M doses [hhs.gov] was any kind of encouragement to get it done?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least we know that we have a 99.96% chance of surviving covid.
which conspiracy nutters arse did you pull that number out of? survival rate in the US is around 98.2% but improving. It isn't even difficult maths to do so you can verify it yourself. 290,000 dead divided by 15.6 million infected = 1.85% mortality rate or 98.15% survival.