Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study(fdanews.com)
fdanews.com
Pfizer’s Covid-19 Pill is 89% Effective in Phase 2/3 Study
https://www.fdanews.com/articles/205801-pfizers-covid-19-pill-is-89-percent-effective-in-phase-23-study
244 comments
This will be useful for the hundreds of thousands of organ transplant recipients like my Dad. The two dose vaccines generally have no effect. Didn't with him or any of the other patients under his doctor's care. Luckily, he was part of the ~40% where the 3rd dose had some effect. Nowhere near healthy folks but at least some. For the other 60%, a drug like this will be life-saving.
Cautiously hopeful that this does indeed work and that it does work for all variants...
.. and that it also would not cost a fortune in 3rd world where we really need easily accessible and storable countermeasures against the bugger.
.. and that it also would not cost a fortune in 3rd world where we really need easily accessible and storable countermeasures against the bugger.
It doesn't help that public is too sensitive about this subject. Government can't scrutinize companies like Pfizer enough if they are worried about public reaction. And I'm not too surprised if some companies rush since a lot of money is on the table.
To be fair, this is the best effort we have ever had to develop a vaccine. So I don't think it's fair to blame these companies if their vaccine wasn't effective on new variants as they initially promised. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't thoroughly scrutinize them.
To be fair, this is the best effort we have ever had to develop a vaccine. So I don't think it's fair to blame these companies if their vaccine wasn't effective on new variants as they initially promised. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't thoroughly scrutinize them.
> So I don't think it's fair to blame these companies if their vaccine wasn't effective on new variants as they initially promised. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't thoroughly scrutinize them.
It depends. On example: If they hid data that propped up their number, then we should blame. Otherwise we should not blame them. Either way, there needs to be scrutiny so that they don’t feel they can easily hide things that matter to public health
It depends. On example: If they hid data that propped up their number, then we should blame. Otherwise we should not blame them. Either way, there needs to be scrutiny so that they don’t feel they can easily hide things that matter to public health
It will be interesting to see if this pill could be used as prophylaxis too, instead of only after the onset of symptoms. Might help with the need to recognize symptoms fairly early on.
$500-700 per 5 day course and very limited supply (<100m courses in 2022 planned)
Does this mean COVID is over? I thought once the vaccines were available we could move on with life, but somehow the goal posts kept moving. Will people accept the much smaller risk of hospitalization once this pill is available?
The goal posts change because the variables change while the prior post is never met.
In my world, everyone that could segregate from vulnerable populations already has and vice versa. They moved, and go out with everyone else that wont go home to an immunocompromised or prediabetic or elderly person.
Multiday 300,000+ attendee music festivals have occurred in major US markets without making the news as reckless and welcomed by all levels of government at the time.
Commonwealth countries and major markets in Europe seem to be less tolerant to the idea of governing, I mean a lower threshold to infection to justify continued restrictions.
Many of their citizens are coming to the US if they can, as well.
US is still doing way worse with infections, deaths, ICU capacity, but its a two tiered reality. And as long as emergency services remain available for everyone else I think thats a good enough bar for people to make their own decisions - which is an opinion matched by even the most restrictive major municipalities in the US, for some time. Remote work has been normalized enough for enough people/office jobs to not require a compromise to stay home.
In my world, everyone that could segregate from vulnerable populations already has and vice versa. They moved, and go out with everyone else that wont go home to an immunocompromised or prediabetic or elderly person.
Multiday 300,000+ attendee music festivals have occurred in major US markets without making the news as reckless and welcomed by all levels of government at the time.
Commonwealth countries and major markets in Europe seem to be less tolerant to the idea of governing, I mean a lower threshold to infection to justify continued restrictions.
Many of their citizens are coming to the US if they can, as well.
US is still doing way worse with infections, deaths, ICU capacity, but its a two tiered reality. And as long as emergency services remain available for everyone else I think thats a good enough bar for people to make their own decisions - which is an opinion matched by even the most restrictive major municipalities in the US, for some time. Remote work has been normalized enough for enough people/office jobs to not require a compromise to stay home.
The goal posts do keep moving, because vaccination uptake is slow, people keep arguing against public health measures, and while we waste time delaying measures or implementing half baked measures, the virus evolves.
Nope. In countries that have vaccination rates and strict compliance to measure the cases keep going up.
The goalposts move because the experts were wrong.
The goalposts move because the experts were wrong.
Did you know you happened to be speaking to one such expert?
Today is your lucky day, it’s your chance to enlighten me: what were the experts wrong about?
Today is your lucky day, it’s your chance to enlighten me: what were the experts wrong about?
- herd immunity
- driving R-value below 1 will cause Covid to extinguish itself
- vaccine will prevent infection
- vaccinated can get infected but don’t really infect others
- driving R-value below 1 will cause Covid to extinguish itself
- vaccine will prevent infection
- vaccinated can get infected but don’t really infect others
Driving Rt below one will cause any species to go extinct. That’s just basic maths. If it’s not happening, then Rt is not below 1.
As for the rest, you’re taking ideas that have some truth to them, and probably misinterpreting what these things actually mean and taking them unreasonably far or to the extreme:
- Herd immunity is a thing, but I'm not sure how you imagine it in your head, or what you think that means.
- Vaccines do prevent infections, but not perfectly well. This (or the contrary) has been communicated to the public in very confusing ways.
- It is true that vaccinated people have a lower likelihood of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others. I'm not sure if you think that means it should be perfect, but biology is messy.
As for the rest, you’re taking ideas that have some truth to them, and probably misinterpreting what these things actually mean and taking them unreasonably far or to the extreme:
- Herd immunity is a thing, but I'm not sure how you imagine it in your head, or what you think that means.
- Vaccines do prevent infections, but not perfectly well. This (or the contrary) has been communicated to the public in very confusing ways.
- It is true that vaccinated people have a lower likelihood of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others. I'm not sure if you think that means it should be perfect, but biology is messy.
Your response is some impressive hand waving.
Yes, those things are infectious disease concepts and they were touted as to how COVID will be dealt with.
Lots of talk of “once we get to 80% vaccination rate we’ll hit here immunity”. You don’t hear that any more huh?
“If we drive R below 1 we can extinguish Covid”. Now it’s “Covid is endemic, it’s not going away”.
“Once everyone is vaccinated, Covid goes away”, then “It really rare for the vaccinated to get Covid” to “holy shit, most new cases are in fully vaccinated”.
You can honestly look at that narrative and NOT completely understand why people are not listening any more?
Yes, those things are infectious disease concepts and they were touted as to how COVID will be dealt with.
Lots of talk of “once we get to 80% vaccination rate we’ll hit here immunity”. You don’t hear that any more huh?
“If we drive R below 1 we can extinguish Covid”. Now it’s “Covid is endemic, it’s not going away”.
“Once everyone is vaccinated, Covid goes away”, then “It really rare for the vaccinated to get Covid” to “holy shit, most new cases are in fully vaccinated”.
You can honestly look at that narrative and NOT completely understand why people are not listening any more?
My response isn’t hand-wavy, it’s pretty categorical: the problem is that people can’t deal with uncertainty, and fill in too many blanks in their minds with over-simplistic assumptions. If you’re looking for a full picture of certainty about the future, that’s not exactly what science will give you.
> the problem is that people can’t deal with uncertainty, and fill in too many blanks in their minds with over-simplistic assumptions.
No, the problem is that this was communicated in imperfect ways to the public (as you said yourself), who then filled in the gaps themselves. Risk communication is complicated and the govt, the experts, and the media all failed the public here.
No, the problem is that this was communicated in imperfect ways to the public (as you said yourself), who then filled in the gaps themselves. Risk communication is complicated and the govt, the experts, and the media all failed the public here.
I don't disagree that there were a lot of communication issues, but I think many people don't appreciate just how difficult public health communications is.
It literally does not matter how right you are or well you communicate something: there will always be groups of people who misinterpret what you say, don't understand what you say, or weaponize what you say for political purposes.
It literally does not matter how right you are or well you communicate something: there will always be groups of people who misinterpret what you say, don't understand what you say, or weaponize what you say for political purposes.
R0 < 1 should be measured globally unless you're planning on isolating forever.
Be careful because R0 and Rt refer to different things: R0 is a property of the pathogen under the assumption of “normal life” and measures how inherently infectious it is.
Rt is a measure of the real-life infectivity of a pathogen at a specific point in time, under no assumption of “normal life”, and possibly within some arbitrary geographical bounds. The purpose of Rt is not to measure the inherent infectivity of a pathogen, but rather its infectivity in a specific environment and set of circumstances: it’s the high-level metric that informs you of the combined impact of public health measures, social behaviour changes, immunity, etc, on the pathogen’s infectivity.
You can see Rt as being equal to R0 times some correction factor that accounts for everything else.
Rt is a measure of the real-life infectivity of a pathogen at a specific point in time, under no assumption of “normal life”, and possibly within some arbitrary geographical bounds. The purpose of Rt is not to measure the inherent infectivity of a pathogen, but rather its infectivity in a specific environment and set of circumstances: it’s the high-level metric that informs you of the combined impact of public health measures, social behaviour changes, immunity, etc, on the pathogen’s infectivity.
You can see Rt as being equal to R0 times some correction factor that accounts for everything else.
Ah thanks for the explanation, I wasn't aware of the difference!
Can you list those experts?
Because none of the actual experts I heard or read about said that.
A simple google search about those points also reveal optimistic opinions by various people and not one instance where experts claim so.
A simple google search about those points also reveal optimistic opinions by various people and not one instance where experts claim so.
Your Google skills are weak. The examples are easy to find.
The CDC said that the vaccinated can only “rarely” infect others.
And before you say “but Delta!”, Delta was already dominant around the time of the statement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/cdc-vaccinated-del...
The CDC said that the vaccinated can only “rarely” infect others.
And before you say “but Delta!”, Delta was already dominant around the time of the statement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/cdc-vaccinated-del...
Or your understanding skills are weak. I don’t know what you are even trying to reply, I don’t see one mention that says CDC claims vaccinated people do not spread the infection. Yes they said rarely, but that does also mean, vaccinated people are likely to spread disease.
Unlike your statement earlier which implies they claimed vaccinated do not spread disease.
So you agree that the CDC was wrong? That was my entire point and what you challenged me on.
You seem to be trying to squirm out of your earlier statement.
You seem to be trying to squirm out of your earlier statement.
No expert worth his salt will ever say vaccines are 100% effective, what vaccine does is train your body, its up to your body on response. So what CDC said was true, I never said it was wrong. You took the article as an absolute statement which is clearly wrong.
Look at BC Canada, 90% vaccine uptake (2 doses). Very strong public masking. Vax passport checking at most businesses. More restrictions recently introduced. Hospitals on the verge of being overwhelmed.
> 90% vaccine uptake (2 doses)
82%
> Hospitals on the verge of being overwhelmed
There's 191 people in the hospital in BC for covid right now[1]. Current preparations are for if omicron has exponential growth over the next several weeks.
[1] https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/a6f23959a8b14bfa989...
82%
> Hospitals on the verge of being overwhelmed
There's 191 people in the hospital in BC for covid right now[1]. Current preparations are for if omicron has exponential growth over the next several weeks.
[1] https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/a6f23959a8b14bfa989...
That’s where I live (Vancouver). Travel restrictions are extremely loose, and public masking and social distancing are not stellar.
Are you suggesting if everyone was vaccinated we wouldn't have variants at all? Or is there some other measure that can prevent variants? I'm not familiar with a public health policy that can do that.
What is it with everyone and the all-or-nothing mental models?
That's what I thought.
All the behaviour changes, vaccines, masks and other public health intervention have the effect of reducing Rt, geometrically, by some factor. When Rt goes below 1 for long enough, not only do variants go away, covid goes away. When you do all kinds of halfass measures and either Rt does not go below 1, or keeps going below and above 1, then you’re giving time for the virus to mutate, and this has the effect of moving people from the “immune” bucket back to the “vulnerable” bucket. When you’re beyond the very beginning of the infections S-curve, this results in an increase of Rt, which further prolongs everything. The longer this happens, the more things change (and more likely than not, for the worse), hence goalposts needing to be adjusted.
Right, I'm not disputing the math of herd immunity. What I'm getting at is that we "lost the race". Delta emerged from India in Dec 2020 before vaccines became publicly available. Maybe Rt of the original strain would have been pushed below 1, but the Rt of delta among the vaccinated is way above 1. Omicron is even worse w.r.t immune escape.
We know there are many viruses we can manage with mass vaccination and herd immunity, such as smallpox and measles. But the important difference is those diseases don't mutate as quickly as covid. Therefore it's not a given that covid is something that can be snuffed out with the same methods. We're clearly in a position of playing catch-up and fire-fighting.
Your post implies a sentiment like: "if only we didn't half ass things, we could've beaten this virus. The problems aren't with the measures themselves, just that we didn't go far enough."
Ok, how much further should we go compared to countries that have the strictest measures? Take Australia for example, they have quarantine camps, lockdowns for the unvaccinated, advanced tracing and databases, etc.
For a while this worked pretty well. But their cases have been skyrocketing as of July this year, and it's likely a delta wave. What will omicron look like once it gets there? Would you say their measures were half-baked?
You express indignation but don't say what we should have done differently or what we should do now.
Those who share your mindset come off as having a kind of denial-ism, and an urge to point the finger.
The fact is we're not as "in-control" as we like to think. Nature is inevitable. Our technology and ability to organize is bad.
Let's recognize that an endless state of emergency also has consequences, health measures should be proportional, and for the most part we've done our best. If we can't snuff out the disease and the variants are getting milder anyway, then it's time to start thinking about moving past covid.
We know there are many viruses we can manage with mass vaccination and herd immunity, such as smallpox and measles. But the important difference is those diseases don't mutate as quickly as covid. Therefore it's not a given that covid is something that can be snuffed out with the same methods. We're clearly in a position of playing catch-up and fire-fighting.
Your post implies a sentiment like: "if only we didn't half ass things, we could've beaten this virus. The problems aren't with the measures themselves, just that we didn't go far enough."
Ok, how much further should we go compared to countries that have the strictest measures? Take Australia for example, they have quarantine camps, lockdowns for the unvaccinated, advanced tracing and databases, etc.
For a while this worked pretty well. But their cases have been skyrocketing as of July this year, and it's likely a delta wave. What will omicron look like once it gets there? Would you say their measures were half-baked?
You express indignation but don't say what we should have done differently or what we should do now.
Those who share your mindset come off as having a kind of denial-ism, and an urge to point the finger.
The fact is we're not as "in-control" as we like to think. Nature is inevitable. Our technology and ability to organize is bad.
Let's recognize that an endless state of emergency also has consequences, health measures should be proportional, and for the most part we've done our best. If we can't snuff out the disease and the variants are getting milder anyway, then it's time to start thinking about moving past covid.
Your assumption that we would need to take measures in excess of the countries with the strictest measures in order to have eradicated SARS-CoV-2 is probably wrong, and is definitely not what I would think.
I would take New Zealand, Greenland, Taiwan and even China as models of most of what needed to be done. None of them did things perfectly, but they all had some of the right ideas.
I would take New Zealand, Greenland, Taiwan and even China as models of most of what needed to be done. None of them did things perfectly, but they all had some of the right ideas.
> but somehow the goal posts kept moving.
The virus changes, so the end conditions change. It's frustrating but it is what it is.
The virus changes, so the end conditions change. It's frustrating but it is what it is.
> Does this mean COVID is over?
When I took my first jab, the local clinic handed out a flier explaining in no uncertain terms that:
a) the current batch of vaccines work by giving our immune system a workout to be able to experience a COVID infection as either totally unnoticed or at most a mild case,
b) the current batch of vaccines does not nor did ever guaranteed you won't contract and spread COVID,
c) even with all shots we still need to practice basic higiene and health precautions like wearing a mask, wash hands, and social distance.
We're talking about pre-Delta times. This has been widely known from the start.
How come antivaxxers are the only ones repeating cynical comments on how the initial batch of vaccines, which we all are lucky to have but are still at the level of being better than nothing, would be a silver bullet?
When I took my first jab, the local clinic handed out a flier explaining in no uncertain terms that:
a) the current batch of vaccines work by giving our immune system a workout to be able to experience a COVID infection as either totally unnoticed or at most a mild case,
b) the current batch of vaccines does not nor did ever guaranteed you won't contract and spread COVID,
c) even with all shots we still need to practice basic higiene and health precautions like wearing a mask, wash hands, and social distance.
We're talking about pre-Delta times. This has been widely known from the start.
How come antivaxxers are the only ones repeating cynical comments on how the initial batch of vaccines, which we all are lucky to have but are still at the level of being better than nothing, would be a silver bullet?
> the current batch of vaccines does not nor did ever guaranteed you won't contract and spread COVID
Guarantee, no. But the thought was that it would greatly reduce the risk of spreading the disease, such that once a sufficient number of people were vaccinated herd immunity would kill off the virus and end the pandemic. We're now two years in with a 73% vaccination rate in the US (not counting those with natural immunity), with even higher rates elsewhere; still no end in sight.
If vaccines aren't going to end the pandemic, then something else needs to. Will a pill that reduces the lethality of the disease by 89% be enough that we can finally put this to rest and go back to normal? If not that, then what?
Guarantee, no. But the thought was that it would greatly reduce the risk of spreading the disease, such that once a sufficient number of people were vaccinated herd immunity would kill off the virus and end the pandemic. We're now two years in with a 73% vaccination rate in the US (not counting those with natural immunity), with even higher rates elsewhere; still no end in sight.
If vaccines aren't going to end the pandemic, then something else needs to. Will a pill that reduces the lethality of the disease by 89% be enough that we can finally put this to rest and go back to normal? If not that, then what?
> But the thought was that it would greatly reduce the risk of spreading the disease, such that once a sufficient number of people were vaccinated herd immunity would kill off the virus and end the pandemic. We're now two years in with a 73% vaccination rate in the US (not counting those with natural immunity),
This was very clearly and openly discussed when the vaccines first came out: vaccines would help reduce spread and with a high enough rate that would end the pandemic but that we’d need relatively high vaccination rates to stop something which can spread this easily.
This was correct and the data suggests that it could have worked but we never seriously tried it. As of today, 61% of Americans have been vaccinated. That is far, far below the 90+% threshold used in those first messages — and that was before Delta and the Omicron delivered both higher spread and reduced effectiveness to make the problem harder.
The other thing to remember is that the pandemic ending doesn’t necessarily mean complete eradication. If, as appears to be the case, vaccination and medications significantly reduce the risk of serious illness and/or long COVID, that will probably be enough to get it down to the level of, say, influenza.
This was very clearly and openly discussed when the vaccines first came out: vaccines would help reduce spread and with a high enough rate that would end the pandemic but that we’d need relatively high vaccination rates to stop something which can spread this easily.
This was correct and the data suggests that it could have worked but we never seriously tried it. As of today, 61% of Americans have been vaccinated. That is far, far below the 90+% threshold used in those first messages — and that was before Delta and the Omicron delivered both higher spread and reduced effectiveness to make the problem harder.
The other thing to remember is that the pandemic ending doesn’t necessarily mean complete eradication. If, as appears to be the case, vaccination and medications significantly reduce the risk of serious illness and/or long COVID, that will probably be enough to get it down to the level of, say, influenza.
I thought the vaccines reduced the lethality quite a bit. Do we know how vaccinated/no pill compare to unvaccinated/pill?
That’s not what was messaged to the general public from our leaders. The narrative went from “the vaccinated cant get infected” to “the vaccinated won’t really transmit it”, so “its clearly the unvaccinated who are the problem” to “well it turns out vaccinated people can get and transmit Covid just as well as unvaccinated”.
And if vaccines wouldnt “end” Covid why so much discussion on R values and “herd immunity”. The messaging around that went silent pretty quickly when it was clear that wasn’t happening with Covid.
And the only reason the narrative changed is because it was plainly obvious to the general public things weren’t going as planned.
But I get it, you cant predict how a new infectious disease will pan out, but holy shit has the PR messaging ever been terrible.
But then I wonder if that was intentional? Would the public ever have gone along with all this if the government was honest and said “we’ll continue to have restrictions for the next 5 years”?
And if vaccines wouldnt “end” Covid why so much discussion on R values and “herd immunity”. The messaging around that went silent pretty quickly when it was clear that wasn’t happening with Covid.
And the only reason the narrative changed is because it was plainly obvious to the general public things weren’t going as planned.
But I get it, you cant predict how a new infectious disease will pan out, but holy shit has the PR messaging ever been terrible.
But then I wonder if that was intentional? Would the public ever have gone along with all this if the government was honest and said “we’ll continue to have restrictions for the next 5 years”?
I think the CDC was being pragmatic. They recognized that Americans were fatigued after a year. Asking people to still mask and social distance even after vaccinating is a lot to ask for even if it would technically get the virus under control sooner by catching those breakthrough cases too. The prospect of normalcy would increase vaccine acceptance, and then we would hopefully reach herd immunity by vaccine as demonstrated by cases falling off a cliff. Unfortunately unvaccinated people took off their masks and then Delta happened.
So the CDC lied and now that lie is coming back to bite them when people doubt what they say going forward?
And please, Delta was starting to circulate before the vaccine was widely available outside the US and Europe.
But that’s exactly what I’m talking about. The unvaccinated make a good scapegoat for the failure to properly message.
And please, Delta was starting to circulate before the vaccine was widely available outside the US and Europe.
But that’s exactly what I’m talking about. The unvaccinated make a good scapegoat for the failure to properly message.
IMO the errors that cost 800,000 Americans their lives were made last year.
The President publicly denied the seriousness of the situation. The CDC didn't want to use a foreign test and made their own but they were all contaminated and always read positive. There was minimal contract tracing of travelers. The Surgeon General told Americans not to wear masks saying using masks incorrectly would harm them.
The President publicly denied the seriousness of the situation. The CDC didn't want to use a foreign test and made their own but they were all contaminated and always read positive. There was minimal contract tracing of travelers. The Surgeon General told Americans not to wear masks saying using masks incorrectly would harm them.
Haven’t most of the deaths happened this year? Sure we may have started off wrong but clearly we could have course corrected? Or are Americans too stupid to understand the risks and trade offs?
The problem was that it was politicized hard early on. Now you have roughly a third of the country who’ve been told that public health measures are an unpatriotic plot, and a lot of belligerence had been encouraged. The rhetoric around this made it a very clear party loyalty test and lots of people rose to that challenge.
How many people are willing to admit that they were so wrong for the better part of two years and many thousands of people died who wouldn’t have? That’s very close to admitting that those same people weren’t just lying about one thing.
How many people are willing to admit that they were so wrong for the better part of two years and many thousands of people died who wouldn’t have? That’s very close to admitting that those same people weren’t just lying about one thing.
I’ve spent months in 4 different countries since Covid hit and it’s politicized everywhere.
Not sure how you can force people to stay at home, kids out of school, then hand out billions in relief (or not in one country) and not have it be political?
Not sure how you can force people to stay at home, kids out of school, then hand out billions in relief (or not in one country) and not have it be political?
I was specifically thinking about the politicization of protection and treatment. The economic impact was definitely always going to be a debate but basic safety measures like masks and vaccination didn’t used to be a strongly partisan issue (think about how American doctors historically leaned Republican for tax reasons).
Different countries matter less in the internet era, too. In the English-speaking world, the Murdoch media set the message in the US & UK, of course, but these days that spreads quickly outside of national borders and it was easy to see those messages jump to other language communities on social media. This was especially accelerated by the early recognition of certain risk factors which were compatible with the strong man posturing common to a lot of right-wing ideology.
Different countries matter less in the internet era, too. In the English-speaking world, the Murdoch media set the message in the US & UK, of course, but these days that spreads quickly outside of national borders and it was easy to see those messages jump to other language communities on social media. This was especially accelerated by the early recognition of certain risk factors which were compatible with the strong man posturing common to a lot of right-wing ideology.
> I've spent months in 4 different countries since Covid hit and it’s politicized everywhere.
There's a world of difference between criticizing a government for imposing a lockdown at 10pm instead of 11pm or enforcing a 80% occupancy limit instead of 50%, and attacking basic public health measures like taking a vaccine based on sheer lunacy and conspiracy theories.
There's a world of difference between criticizing a government for imposing a lockdown at 10pm instead of 11pm or enforcing a 80% occupancy limit instead of 50%, and attacking basic public health measures like taking a vaccine based on sheer lunacy and conspiracy theories.
With exponential growth early decisive action is needed. Isn’t course correction lying? :)
If they promote very cautious behavior (keep sheltering in place, wear masks) people will throw the catch phrase of "Trust the science!" back at them and demand why the vaccine has not solved the pandemic. If they loosen up on recommendations and something bad happens and they have to take a step back people say they are being capricious.
Or they could just be honest and stop claiming a solution they don’t even know will work?
It’s classic PR rule #1 - don’t lie because the lie will eventually catch up to you. It’s better to say you don’t know.
It’s classic PR rule #1 - don’t lie because the lie will eventually catch up to you. It’s better to say you don’t know.
> Unfortunately unvaccinated people took off their masks and then Delta happened.
That's a CNNesque statement right there.
That's a CNNesque statement right there.
I don't watch sensationalist cable news. What do you mean exactly by CNNesque?
I don't know, the idea that the spread of the Delta variant can be attributed to the "unvaccinated", whose morality is so low that they also happen to often be "anti-mask" as well. This is the kind of scapegoating i would imagine CNN do (I'm being unfair here, CNN would probably add a bit of Russian disinformation as well for good culture war mesure.)
I'm ready to change my mind tho if you back your statement with facts.
I'm ready to change my mind tho if you back your statement with facts.
The spread of Delta is because that variant is more infectious and there is a reservoir of unvaccinated people. The CDC said vaccinated people can take off their masks. They did not say everyone can stop masking. Masking immediately dropped from 75% to 25%. We are not at 75% vaccine coverage even today.
Measles is an example of another highly infectious moderately deadly disease. Wherever we don’t have 97%+ vaccine coverage we have outbreaks.
Even today with the questions about Omicron’s degree of immune escape there’s theoretically a solution available to use. If 95% of people masked we could get spread under control in 6-10 weeks. But masks are a dirty word and public health campaigns have ceilings to adoption.
Measles is an example of another highly infectious moderately deadly disease. Wherever we don’t have 97%+ vaccine coverage we have outbreaks.
Even today with the questions about Omicron’s degree of immune escape there’s theoretically a solution available to use. If 95% of people masked we could get spread under control in 6-10 weeks. But masks are a dirty word and public health campaigns have ceilings to adoption.
No. Delta was around before there was even enough vaccine for countries other than the US and Europe. It was completely unavoidable.
And since it’s clearly the fully vaccinated have only a reduced, not eliminated risk of infection and transmission, we could still get another variant.
Covid isn’t the measles.
And since it’s clearly the fully vaccinated have only a reduced, not eliminated risk of infection and transmission, we could still get another variant.
Covid isn’t the measles.
MaxMoney(1)
jmarbach(1)
desine(3)
hunterb123(3)
whb07(3)
btmiller(3)
Sure are a lot of missing comments here. It seems hardcore leftists love diversity in everything except diversity of opinions. Ah this place is basically group think extreme. More interesting than Reddit usually but just as hostile to debate about subjects that go against the TV gods or popular culture. Basically the internet is becoming little clicks of people that dare not even speak up for fear of losing more than something like posting privileges to a website. You think this issue is not political? It has been politics from the very first minute we saw it on TV.
What are you on about? And how is this comment at all contributing to a healthy discussion?
The vaccines were also lauded as 100% effective in the early days by Fauci and others, so just a reminder that time and reproducibility matter before being too confident about it.
I don't recall a single instance of 100% efficacy claim. It was around 92-97%.
At some point there was some PR about 100% effectiveness of the product on kids, according to, the guys who actually manufacture the product :)
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
Note however that if you read farther down it does say “vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI, 87.5, 100.0]).”
Also that press release is not by any possible definition from “early days” nor is it issued by Dr Fauci.
Also that press release is not by any possible definition from “early days” nor is it issued by Dr Fauci.
To be clear, I was just merely trying to track back where this '100%' claim was coming from as I also didn't remember such a bold claim being ever made, let alone by Fauci.
Now, I invite you to make google searches with a date range and you will see that such studies claiming 100% efficacy on the product on kids started to appear in the early days actually:
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
Since 100% is a pretty awesome figure, my theory is that there must have been quite a bit of press coverage at the time and I have no doubt a lot of people got confused.
Now, I invite you to make google searches with a date range and you will see that such studies claiming 100% efficacy on the product on kids started to appear in the early days actually:
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
Since 100% is a pretty awesome figure, my theory is that there must have been quite a bit of press coverage at the time and I have no doubt a lot of people got confused.
Makes sense and good point of that original press release from March 31.
Can't see GP's comment (flagged, like 7/11 OP ITT) so I don't know if I'm on-topic or not. After Bourla's appearance on Lex's podcast and the latter's mention of a 100% claim on the blue bird app which the former denied (w.r.t. infection I believe), searching his account I came up with these. They're from March 31st (1) and April 1st (2 & 3, quoting 4), third would be most eye-brow lifting today. It is arguably misleading, or odd, to just mention 100% in a tweet on 95% CI with 53.5-100.0 brackets in the study.
1: 100% efficacy against COVID-19 disease for 12-15 year olds in phase 3
2: 100% efficacy against severe COVID-19 as defined by CDC
3: 100% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 cases in South Africa
[1] https://twitter.com/AlbertBourla/status/1377227340011483136
[2] https://twitter.com/AlbertBourla/status/1377586182519947264
[3] https://twitter.com/AlbertBourla/status/1377618480527257606
[4] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
1: 100% efficacy against COVID-19 disease for 12-15 year olds in phase 3
2: 100% efficacy against severe COVID-19 as defined by CDC
3: 100% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 cases in South Africa
[1] https://twitter.com/AlbertBourla/status/1377227340011483136
[2] https://twitter.com/AlbertBourla/status/1377586182519947264
[3] https://twitter.com/AlbertBourla/status/1377618480527257606
[4] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
Here you go. I don't know anything about this website (found it from a google search) but the video montage has plenty of claims of 100%, and a "virtually 100% efficacious" quote from Fauci. The montage is in a meme format making fun of the situation, which is not my preference, and I don't intend to inflame by sharing such a take, it's just the most succinct thing I found.
It highlights quite clearly what I'd mentioned in my first comment, that time and reproducibility matter. I genuinely don't know why it was flagged.
https://news.grabien.com/story-twitter-user-video-showing-sh...
It highlights quite clearly what I'd mentioned in my first comment, that time and reproducibility matter. I genuinely don't know why it was flagged.
https://news.grabien.com/story-twitter-user-video-showing-sh...
I'm not a fan of the "virtually 100% efficacious" claim, but the "and others" part of your original comment, to me, meant "high ranking / respected health officials", not random internet articles and PR lines. Science article titles are rarely accurate to their content, for worse, so screenshots of said titles aren't really meaningful to me. I mean, just look at any hackernews post. Usually the first comment is complaining about the title's inaccuracy.
Maybe there was a narrative shift, but I don't recall ever seeing those 100% claims back in February.
Maybe there was a narrative shift, but I don't recall ever seeing those 100% claims back in February.
Ok, that seems then to be a matter of personal interpretation then and not completely what I meant. I don't know about "February" specifically but clearly 100% claims were being made at some point early on.
People get their information from the newsmedia, and this is what it was reporting. So either our newsmedia isn't truthful or our scientists aren't, or - as my original (flagged) comment was saying - time and reproducibility matter, and may affect the efficacy ultimately reported.
People get their information from the newsmedia, and this is what it was reporting. So either our newsmedia isn't truthful or our scientists aren't, or - as my original (flagged) comment was saying - time and reproducibility matter, and may affect the efficacy ultimately reported.
There's a well known tweet of Fauci saying 'all three vaccines are 100% effective'
Link please.
Not the exact one referenced, but incriminating enough: https://twitter.com/jamesmelville/status/1461750873445568515
Edit: another https://twitter.com/ElnordicoBk/status/1471158531394998273
Edit: another https://twitter.com/ElnordicoBk/status/1471158531394998273
Clicked through and found quotes of Fauci saying “highly effective” and “extraordinarily effective”. Not 100%
Note that these quotes are in context of the US and Fauci’s publicly announced plan to approve, as part of Operation Warp Speed, vaccines that were at least 50% effective.[1]
The vaccines proving to be 80-90% effective in that context certainly makes it reasonable to call them highly effective.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/12/9119879...
Note that these quotes are in context of the US and Fauci’s publicly announced plan to approve, as part of Operation Warp Speed, vaccines that were at least 50% effective.[1]
The vaccines proving to be 80-90% effective in that context certainly makes it reasonable to call them highly effective.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/12/9119879...
"94 to 95 percent"
Now do Joe Rogan and Alex Jones...
You are arguing over semantics. In reality, the Pfizer vax has proven to be less than 10% effective at stopping a future infection.
English isn't my native language, but I thought "proven" wasn't a synonym for "I asked my friends".
It's a fair critique. But when the Captain of an airplane I'm flying on tells me there's an emergency problem with the flaps, I don't ask him for text book evidence, I just look out at the wings and verify the problem.
Check this data in a few weeks. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-s...
Check this data in a few weeks. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-s...
The data you link says that unvaccinated people have 5x the risk of testing positive as vaccinated (no booster) as of October (Slightly higher for Pfizer, lower for J&J). I believe that's 80% efficacy. How do you get 10%?
Note also that this data is as of October 2021, so it's primarily looking at the efficacy against the Delta, whereas the original 90-whatever % claims were obviously the original virus.
Pfizer et al certainly weren't saying in March 2021 that "Pfizer provide 90-100% protection against COVID and all future variants" and I've never heard anyone suggest they thought that's what the claim was.
Note also that this data is as of October 2021, so it's primarily looking at the efficacy against the Delta, whereas the original 90-whatever % claims were obviously the original virus.
Pfizer et al certainly weren't saying in March 2021 that "Pfizer provide 90-100% protection against COVID and all future variants" and I've never heard anyone suggest they thought that's what the claim was.
So, you cite data showing very high efficacy of the vaccine, and are like -- look at it in a few weeks!
Omicron is going to make it worse, but even unboosted folks in South Africa seem to enjoy about 30% efficacy against infection and much higher efficacy against hospitalization and death. But your gossip trumps the data, I guess...
Omicron is going to make it worse, but even unboosted folks in South Africa seem to enjoy about 30% efficacy against infection and much higher efficacy against hospitalization and death. But your gossip trumps the data, I guess...
"Omicron is making it worse" is gossip to you and a fact for me. That's where we disagree.
No, Omicron making it worse is a fact that I already ceded..
but we have data that shows low (but still around 30%, not 10%) efficacy against infection with Omicron.. and still high efficacy (70%) against hospitalization and death.
But you say "has proven less than 10% effective" ... because you are making stuff up.
Further, it may be a mistake to assume South Africa predicts exactly what will happen here (30% fully vaccinated, nearly 0 boosted, 20% HIV incidence, vs. 60% fully vaccinated, 25% boosted, 0.3% HIV incidence).
But you say "has proven less than 10% effective" ... because you are making stuff up.
Further, it may be a mistake to assume South Africa predicts exactly what will happen here (30% fully vaccinated, nearly 0 boosted, 20% HIV incidence, vs. 60% fully vaccinated, 25% boosted, 0.3% HIV incidence).
jjulius(2)
The efficacy is pretty well proven to be > 90% at this point. Per your comment where you admit the number was pulled out of thin air:
> Anecdotal. You do not need to be a meteorologist to know when it's raining. Look outside.
I'll raise you this... where I am 100% of ICU cases are unvaccinated. Read that again 100%. And over 85% of hospitalizations. And before you say "see, 15% of them were breakthrough cases," please learn about base rates. 65% of the people here are vaccinated so to have only 15% of the hospital cases be vaccinated is even more conclusive.
Please, get out of your bubble. If you think it is 10%... or even 50%... or even 70% you need to do some serious introspection.
Please, actually "look outside"! Because if you spent more than 10 seconds actually looking outside, the efficacy is obvious.
> Anecdotal. You do not need to be a meteorologist to know when it's raining. Look outside.
I'll raise you this... where I am 100% of ICU cases are unvaccinated. Read that again 100%. And over 85% of hospitalizations. And before you say "see, 15% of them were breakthrough cases," please learn about base rates. 65% of the people here are vaccinated so to have only 15% of the hospital cases be vaccinated is even more conclusive.
Please, get out of your bubble. If you think it is 10%... or even 50%... or even 70% you need to do some serious introspection.
Please, actually "look outside"! Because if you spent more than 10 seconds actually looking outside, the efficacy is obvious.
Please do not cross into personal attack. That's against the site guidelines and just makes everything worse, regardless of how right you are or feel you are.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I am vaccinated - I believe in the early vaccine's efficacy for stopping serious illness. They have saved many lives.
What I am saying here is that the vaccines were marketed as 90% effective for preventing infection. Was I misunderstanding what was being marketed to me all along?
What I am saying here is that the vaccines were marketed as 90% effective for preventing infection. Was I misunderstanding what was being marketed to me all along?
Yes, you have misunderstood this all along, and that misunderstanding has already been pointed out to you in this thread[1]. It is effective at preventing COVID-19 infections, which you get after being infected with SARA-CoV-2. It never claimed to prevent infection of the latter.
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29619347
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29619347
> It never claimed to prevent infection of the latter.
We had some early data that looked like they were probably about ~70% effective for preventing infection, ~90% effective at preventing symptoms, and >95% effective at preventing severe illness.
These numbers are interesting, because they mean you have less of a chance of becoming infected, but a larger chance, if infected, of being an asymptomatic carrier. So it's difficult to predict the net effect on transmission (probably a benefit, but..)
Now for 2 doses of mRNA vaccine, our best guesses for omicron are more like ~??%, ~30%, and ~70% respectively. Offsetting it slightly is that it looks like omicron may be a bit less likely to cause severe illness at baseline. But, no matter what, this is a big setback.
We had some early data that looked like they were probably about ~70% effective for preventing infection, ~90% effective at preventing symptoms, and >95% effective at preventing severe illness.
These numbers are interesting, because they mean you have less of a chance of becoming infected, but a larger chance, if infected, of being an asymptomatic carrier. So it's difficult to predict the net effect on transmission (probably a benefit, but..)
Now for 2 doses of mRNA vaccine, our best guesses for omicron are more like ~??%, ~30%, and ~70% respectively. Offsetting it slightly is that it looks like omicron may be a bit less likely to cause severe illness at baseline. But, no matter what, this is a big setback.
Show me a single claim they'd be 100% effective by an epidemiologist, please.