Science/Environment Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - HCQ doesn't work - Part 3

[Chief]

This thread is continued in Part 4:

Science/Environment - Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Part 4

This is part 3 of this thread. Part 2 is here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/wuhan-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic-declared-part-2.1238728/ --------------- It looks like it began in wild animals being sold for human consumption, and once again the consequences of this stupidity is...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Corpuscles]

This is the paper on the Pfizer vaccine
Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine | NEJM

They calculated efficacy based on the relative incidence of the two groups catching COVID - in control group 162 cases while the vaccine group had 8 cases.
They were not doing antibody assessment on this population (it may have been the earlier trials though)

Thank you. Effort to reply very much appreciated

Will read more thoroughly later, but I see the 5% is the differential between it working and not working even though they did not know the extent of contact with the virus.

I'm very disappointed. I think that is a high failure rate.

I wonder do other vaccines also have such high failure rates
Or is it that most of them are given to healthy children/adults that are not hampered by age and comorbidity.
I will read and ask proper questions later if they arise.

 

[Corpuscles]

...


I'm not buying "5%" as a fact about anything until you can table the actual papers. I have little doubt that if your sources are tabloid news, then they have been taken out of context.

I hope by now you have noticed CrankyHawk provided such paper or basis for the claim by one manufacturer study
Just incase you have on "ignore"

 

[Snake_Baker]

It looks like a pretty good vaccine to me & 95%/5% is not a literal outcome. It's a confidence interval.

Folks need to read the actual papers.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I hope by now you have noticed CrankyHawk provided such paper or basis for the claim by one manufacturer study
Just incase you have on "ignore"

LOL, you're the one making the claims mate, so YOU should follow CH's lead and present the papers to back up YOUR claims!!!

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Firstly, much respect for your input CH. However why is it when someone offers their opinion on a forum, an opinion based on their academic background, you choose to label them self indulgent and condescending?

Is giving ones opinion necessarily self indulgent?
And is stating their academic background condescending?

Just sayin’.

Oh, and Chief ‘likes’ your comment, ...ahh the irony!

That comment was very Chief-like, admittedly

 

[Arkangel]

It looks like a pretty good vaccine to me & 95%/5% is not a literal outcome. It's a confidence interval.

By my reading it's pretty close to, if not exactly, the literal outcome: The 95% credible interval is .903--.976, so assuming the posterior distribution isn't skewed its peak should be about .94. Of course, the posterior likely is skewed, since the posterior for extreme probabilities decreases more rapidly with conflicting data than it does for non-extreme probabilities. So, it would make sense that the median of the distribution isn't exactly half-way between the upper and lower 95% credible intervals, resulting in the reported estimate of 95% effectiveness.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It's never that simple. Read the paper.

 

[Arkangel]

It's never that simple. Read the paper.

I have, and the supplementary materials: The posterior estimate of the vaccine's effectiveness is 95%, with credible intervals of 90.3--97.6 (and matching confidence intervals, if you prefer frequentist statistics). If you're trying to make a point about something else, I'm afraid it's too obscure for me to understand without explanation.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Why are we referencing the trial?

We have 10 million+ trial participants now so to speak

Thats the data I care about.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Why are we referencing the trial?

We have 10 million+ trial participants now so to speak

Thats the data I care about.

This would be the phase IV trial.

 

[Total Power]

I have, and the supplementary materials: The posterior estimate of the vaccine's effectiveness is 95%, with credible intervals of 90.3--97.6 (and matching confidence intervals, if you prefer frequentist statistics). If you're trying to make a point about something else, I'm afraid it's too obscure for me to understand without explanation.

When you actually dig deeper the man goes missing. Never really argues anything outside of copy paste.

 

[ferball]

When you actually dig deeper the man goes missing. Never really argues anything outside of copy paste.

And then bangs on about everyone else doing it.

THis should be his avatar.

 

[Dry Rot]

How dodgy is the WHO?

If you ever wondered why so many people think so poorly of the WHO, check out this s**t they are now up to: Definitions of herd immunity.

This is really important, as so many people quote the WHO as if it is an ethical trustworthy organisation which it certainly is not.

9/6/20 WHO definition (as we all know it):

https://web.archive.org/web/20201101161006/https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology

What is Herd immunity?

Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. This means that even people who haven’t been infected, or in whom an infection hasn’t triggered an immune response, they are protected because people around them who are immune can act as buffers between them and an infected person. The threshold for establishing herd immunity for COVID-19 is not yet clear.

Updated bullshit 13/11/20 WHO definition – note how they excluded immunity from previous infections and simply spruik vaccines

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology

‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.

Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it. Read the Director-General’s 12 October media briefing speech for more detail.

Vaccines train our immune systems to develop antibodies, just as might happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question. Visit our webpage on COVID-19 and vaccines for more detail.

As more people in a community get vaccinated, fewer people remain vulnerable, and there is less possibility for passing the pathogen on from person to person. Lowering the possibility for a pathogen to circulate in the community protects those who cannot be vaccinated due to other serious health conditions from the disease targeted by the vaccine. This is called ‘herd immunity’.

‘Herd immunity’ exists when a high percentage of the population is vaccinated, making it difficult for infectious diseases to spread, because there are not many people who can be infected. Read our Q&A on vaccines and immunization for more information.

The percentage of people who need to have antibodies in order to achieve herd immunity against a particular disease varies with each disease. For example, herd immunity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated. The remaining 5% will be protected by the fact that measles will not spread among those who are vaccinated. For polio, the threshold is about 80%.

Achieving herd immunity with safe and effective vaccines makes diseases rarer and saves lives.

 

[owen87]

How dodgy is the WHO?

If you ever wondered why so many people think so poorly of the WHO, check out this sh*t they are now up to: Definitions of herd immunity.

This is really important, as so many people quote the WHO as if it is an ethical trustworthy organisation which it certainly is not.

9/6/20 WHO definition (as we all know it):

https://web.archive.org/web/20201101161006/https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology

What is Herd immunity?

Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. This means that even people who haven’t been infected, or in whom an infection hasn’t triggered an immune response, they are protected because people around them who are immune can act as buffers between them and an infected person. The threshold for establishing herd immunity for COVID-19 is not yet clear.

Updated bullshit 13/11/20 WHO definition – note how they excluded immunity from previous infections and simply spruik vaccines

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology

‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.

Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it. Read the Director-General’s 12 October media briefing speech for more detail.

Vaccines train our immune systems to develop antibodies, just as might happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question. Visit our webpage on COVID-19 and vaccines for more detail.

As more people in a community get vaccinated, fewer people remain vulnerable, and there is less possibility for passing the pathogen on from person to person. Lowering the possibility for a pathogen to circulate in the community protects those who cannot be vaccinated due to other serious health conditions from the disease targeted by the vaccine. This is called ‘herd immunity’.

‘Herd immunity’ exists when a high percentage of the population is vaccinated, making it difficult for infectious diseases to spread, because there are not many people who can be infected. Read our Q&A on vaccines and immunization for more information.

The percentage of people who need to have antibodies in order to achieve herd immunity against a particular disease varies with each disease. For example, herd immunity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated. The remaining 5% will be protected by the fact that measles will not spread among those who are vaccinated. For polio, the threshold is about 80%.

Achieving herd immunity with safe and effective vaccines makes diseases rarer and saves lives.

They’re not trustworthy because they’ve updated their definition?

I guess we can’t trust anything that changes over time with new information in that case.

 

[Dry Rot]

They’re not trustworthy because they’ve updated their definition?

I guess we can’t trust anything that changes over time with new information in that case.

Sorry, do you normally miss the point like that? The original definition is the accepted one, the new is one is bullshit from the dodgy, untrustworthy WHO.

Definitions like this from the Mayo Clinic may help you

Herd immunity and COVID-19: What you need to know

Get the facts about coronavirus and herd immunity.

www.mayoclinic.org

There are two paths to herd immunity for COVID-19 — vaccines and infection.

or JAMA

Patient Information: What Is Herd Immunity?

This JAMA Patient Page describes what herd immunity is, how it limits disease spread, and how it is achieved in a population either by vaccination or by infection and recovery from a disease.

jamanetwork.com

Herd immunity may be achieved either through infection and recovery or by vaccination.

or the CDC

Vaccine Glossary of Terms | CDC

Glossary of terms used on Vaccines and Immunizations website

www.cdc.gov

Community immunity: A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are offered some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community. Also known as herd immunity.

Do I need to go on? Have you now got the point? Or should I draw it in pictures?

 

[owen87]

Sorry, do you normally miss the point like that? The original definition is the accepted one, the new is one is bullshit.

Sounds to me that people like Trump were missing the point of herd immunity and misusing the term, so they’ve changed their website to address that.

The WHO has pushed vaccination for decades, it’s not suddenly new for them to do so, it’s just new that it’s such a political issue.

 

[Dry Rot]

Sounds to me that people like Trump were missing the point of herd immunity and misusing the term, so they’ve changed their website to address that.

The WHO has pushed vaccination for decades, it’s not suddenly new for them to do so, it’s just new that it’s such a political issue.

But their definition is bullshit, isn't it? They deliberately omitted one of the accepted causes of heard immunity and changed their definition.

Utter dishonesty. How can you defend this?

Next you'll be claiming that big Pharma and vax manufacturers are ethical honest organisations.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I have, and the supplementary materials: The posterior estimate of the vaccine's effectiveness is 95%, with credible intervals of 90.3--97.6 (and matching confidence intervals, if you prefer frequentist statistics). If you're trying to make a point about something else, I'm afraid it's too obscure for me to understand without explanation.

You and Snake seem to be mostly agreeing but arguing over irrelevant details. My reservations about the Pfizer vaccine results are more broad.

The efficacy criteria used in the trial was comparison of 'Covid-19 cases'. I would argue that the aim of the vaccine should not be to just prevent mild symptoms, but to reduce hospitalisations, serious illness and death. There was very limited data on this in the trial.

Another measure of efficacy might be whether a vaccine prevents the spread of the virus. This is not known from the trial results.

The long term effects of the vaccine are unknown, such as whether it makes you more susceptible to other illnesses, or triggers an overactive immune response which is damaging.

 

[MrKK]

They’re not trustworthy because they’ve updated their definition?

I guess we can’t trust anything that changes over time with new information in that case.

LOL "new information". What new studies are the WHO relying on that show herd immunity is only possible through vaccinations rather than natural infection?

 

[Total Power]

Russia said its coronavirus death toll was more than three times higher than it had previously reported, making it the country with the third-largest number of fatalities.

For months, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has boasted about Russia’s low fatality rate from the virus, saying earlier this month that it had done a better job at managing the pandemic than western countries.

But since early in the pandemic, some Russian experts have said the government was playing down the country’s outbreak.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Russia said its coronavirus death toll was more than three times higher than it had previously reported, making it the country with the third-largest number of fatalities.

For months, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has boasted about Russia’s low fatality rate from the virus, saying earlier this month that it had done a better job at managing the pandemic than western countries.

But since early in the pandemic, some Russian experts have said the government was playing down the country’s outbreak.

I read an article (which I can't find now) that said China's death toll (should it ever be released) would outstrip them all

 

[owen87]

Next you'll be claiming that big Pharma and vax manufacturers are ethical honest organisations.

Yes. That’s definitely what I was saying.

 

[HTT]

Got home late

I have a question that has bothered me a little. Perhaps for the more medically educated to help. (even the geniuses too!)

I found it rather surprising all these vaccines claim a 95% efficacy. (The only one dropped out for different reason was QLd Uni)
Surely not all (coincidentally) came out exactly the same?

My understanding is they do not purposely infect humans in the final trial with the virus? But even if they do does that change it?

Question If it is only 95% effective , then surely the implied 1 in 20 (5%) failure will get it anyway, or if exposed get it.?
That is much higher than it seems from current "contacts" (ie Caught from those who have tested positive -previously got it ) .... get it unprotected by vaccine now , anyway?
Has any of the incautious ( let it run wild ) countries got as high as 5% of the population with it or had it?
USA maybe bit over or close to 5% =19 million cases total
Surely the 5% for whom the vaccine likely fails (manufacturer test claim) is also likely to be the weaker immune system highest risk?

Edit: IOW - are these vaccines really any more effective, than doing nothing ie the present non vaccine situation? Or is it just attempting to boost any prior exposure, to form some slightly better mild immune resistance?

Anyone got know the resolution to that issue?

The implication is that, in an encounter where an unvaccinated person would definitely get the virus, a vaccinated person is a 95% chance of not getting it (so 5% chance of getting it).
In stage 3 trials of the Pfizer vaccine, ~22k people received the vaccine and ~22k received a placebo. It is reasonable to expect across 22,000 people (who were assigned to the groups randomly), that the level of exposure to the virus would be roughly equal. A 0% effective vaccine would mean the same number of people in each group would get coronavirus in the time of the trial. 100% effective would mean no one in the vaccine group would get it at all.
The data they got from the Pfizer trial is pretty clear.
Vaccine group infections: 8
Placebo group infections: 162

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

In regards to the vaccine

Lets run with the 95% efficacy. I dont think its ever been proven to be higher?

At present according to CDC stats, Covid is causing hospitalisation in 0.12 tp 0.15% of all people who have it (fluctuates between there)

I ask the question, what if the efficacy is only occuring in those who are not prone to hospitilsation? What if the 0.12 to 0.15% fall into the 5% category?

Then what? We are back at square one are we not? If the vaccine doesnt protect the 0.15% in hospital, then is it really all that useful?

 

[Hornberger]

In regards to the vaccine

Lets run with the 95% efficacy. I dont think its ever been proven to be higher?

At present according to CDC stats, Covid is causing hospitalisation in 0.12 tp 0.15% of all people who have it (fluctuates between there)

I ask the question, what if the efficacy is only occuring in those who are not prone to hospitilsation? What if the 0.12 to 0.15% fall into the 5% category?

Then what? We are back at square one are we not? If the vaccine doesnt protect the 0.15% in hospital, then is it really all that useful?

Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient.