Reply
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,803
Registered: ‎03-19-2010

Re: New. Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective in preventing ASYMPTOMATIC infections. 97% for symptomatic.

I really don't understand how they can come to those conclusions.  Do people just continually go and get tested all the time even when they have no symptoms?  It just makes no sense to me.

 

I have never had much faith in the efficacy claims even for the trials becasue they weren't saying how they were coming up with that data.  The only way to get accurate data would be to sequester all the people in the trials and then expose them all to the same amount of virus, a virus that according to all accounts kills.  Were they actually doing that?  Otherwise, it seems to me it's just the luck of the draw as to whether these people were actually exposed or not.  Were they going around wearing masks like everyone else which would also make being exposed to the virus less likely.  

 

As an example, my husband and I have really not limited our comings and goings at all throughout the entire pandemic.  Sure, we wore masks and weren't eating inside restaurants only because they were closed to inside dining.  But once they opened, we were there.  My husband goes to bars several nights a week and plays trivia or shoots the breeze.  You would think with all that exposure he would've gotten Covid.  A couple of weeks ago he gave blood and the place was giving free antibody testing when you donated.  His came back negative.  So, how could we even know that the test subjects were ever even exposed to the virus?

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 7,784
Registered: ‎02-19-2014

Re: New. Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective in preventing ASYMPTOMATIC infections. 97% for symptomatic.


@pitdakota wrote:

@Porcelain wrote:

94% EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING INFECTIONS!!!!!!

 

Not just preventing illness in the vaccinated person, preventing infecting others. Happy dance!

 

Calvin and Hobbes do their Happy Dance! | Calvin and hobbes, Funny  wallpaper, Cartoonist


___________________________________________________

 

@Porcelain, have to say that at least at this point in time, both the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines in terms of efficacy are knocking it out of the ballpark.

 

I remember back in the fall when most would have been happy to see a 50-60% efficacy in a covid vaccine.  That would be in line with a typical influenza vaccine in a good year.  I don't think most ever expected efficacy percentages in the high 90s.

 

It is great to see the research coming from Israel. Although the data is not yet peer reviewed, I will be anxious to see it when it is published. Usually it is expected for the effectiveness to drop at least a couple of percentage points (if not more) once the vaccine is out there in the public.  But in this particular case, their data totally supports the efficacy documented by Pfizer in the clinical 3 trial, which is encouraging. 

 

 

 


I agree it is such encouraging news! It's just a matter of communicating it in a way that makes sense to people who are hesitant. I wish I knew how to do that.

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
"Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,970
Registered: ‎03-16-2010

Re: New. Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective in preventing ASYMPTOMATIC infections. 97% for symptomatic.

[ Edited ]

@Icegoddess wrote:

I really don't understand how they can come to those conclusions.  Do people just continually go and get tested all the time even when they have no symptoms?  It just makes no sense to me.

 

I have never had much faith in the efficacy claims even for the trials becasue they weren't saying how they were coming up with that data.  The only way to get accurate data would be to sequester all the people in the trials and then expose them all to the same amount of virus, a virus that according to all accounts kills.  Were they actually doing that?  Otherwise, it seems to me it's just the luck of the draw as to whether these people were actually exposed or not.  Were they going around wearing masks like everyone else which would also make being exposed to the virus less likely.  

 

As an example, my husband and I have really not limited our comings and goings at all throughout the entire pandemic.  Sure, we wore masks and weren't eating inside restaurants only because they were closed to inside dining.  But once they opened, we were there.  My husband goes to bars several nights a week and plays trivia or shoots the breeze.  You would think with all that exposure he would've gotten Covid.  A couple of weeks ago he gave blood and the place was giving free antibody testing when you donated.  His came back negative.  So, how could we even know that the test subjects were ever even exposed to the virus?


__________________________________________________________

 

@Icegoddess    Calculating efficacy in a vaccine study is fairly standard and is a very open and transparent process when you look at the data in a phase 3 clinical vaccine trial.  So I don't know where the comment of they never say where they come up with that data comes from?   One has to actually look at the data and there it is.  

 

For phase 3 clinical trials efficacy is determined as a comparative process of how many people in the vaccine group contracted said illness and how many in the placebo group contracted the illness.  The study will also operationally define how they define whatever illness it is and how they determine the diagnosis.  It is all there in the study.  Might not be discussed in the quick article you read about the study, but the data is clearly there in the study. 

 

@Mindy D, posted the actual study for Pfizer here when it was released.

 

 

 

 


* Freedom has a taste the protected will never know *
Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,970
Registered: ‎03-16-2010

Re: New. Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective in preventing ASYMPTOMATIC infections. 97% for symptomatic.


@Mersha wrote:

@Mindy D   With my 2nd Pfizer shot my temp shot up to 101, chills, aching, headache but the very worst was throwing up 4-5 times per hour for 8 hours on the day after.

 

It was awful but at least I know the vaccine is working.


__________________________________________________________

 

So sorry you had those side effects, but on the positive side you now have coverage from the vaccine.

 

I am hoping that people are learning that the side effects one can experience are a result of a full out war the immune system is waging in response to that little invader & that the symptoms will vary from person to peron.  

 

Previous to this time, many people would swear they caught the flu from the flu vaccine because they had these types of side effects, not understanding that this was their particular immune response & one could not in fact get the flu from the flu vaccine.  

 

At any rate, you know your immune system was in full gear and it was going to let you know it!  Glad it is over for you though @Mersha!


* Freedom has a taste the protected will never know *
Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

Re: New. Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective in preventing ASYMPTOMATIC infections. 97% for symptomatic.

@pitdakota   I always appreciate your thoughtful responses!

"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are. - Benjamin Franklin
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,803
Registered: ‎03-19-2010

Re: New. Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective in preventing ASYMPTOMATIC infections. 97% for symptomatic.


@pitdakota wrote:

@Icegoddess wrote:

I really don't understand how they can come to those conclusions.  Do people just continually go and get tested all the time even when they have no symptoms?  It just makes no sense to me.

 

I have never had much faith in the efficacy claims even for the trials becasue they weren't saying how they were coming up with that data.  The only way to get accurate data would be to sequester all the people in the trials and then expose them all to the same amount of virus, a virus that according to all accounts kills.  Were they actually doing that?  Otherwise, it seems to me it's just the luck of the draw as to whether these people were actually exposed or not.  Were they going around wearing masks like everyone else which would also make being exposed to the virus less likely.  

 

As an example, my husband and I have really not limited our comings and goings at all throughout the entire pandemic.  Sure, we wore masks and weren't eating inside restaurants only because they were closed to inside dining.  But once they opened, we were there.  My husband goes to bars several nights a week and plays trivia or shoots the breeze.  You would think with all that exposure he would've gotten Covid.  A couple of weeks ago he gave blood and the place was giving free antibody testing when you donated.  His came back negative.  So, how could we even know that the test subjects were ever even exposed to the virus?


__________________________________________________________

 

@Icegoddess    Calculating efficacy in a vaccine study is fairly standard and is a very open and transparent process when you look at the data in a phase 3 clinical vaccine trial.  So I don't know where the comment of they never say where they come up with that data comes from?   One has to actually look at the data and there it is.  

 

For phase 3 clinical trials efficacy is determined as a comparative process of how many people in the vaccine group contracted said illness and how many in the placebo group contracted the illness.  The study will also operationally define how they define whatever illness it is and how they determine the diagnosis.  It is all there in the study.  Might not be discussed in the quick article you read about the study, but the data is clearly there in the study. 

 

@Mindy D, posted the actual study for Pfizer here when it was released.

 

 


@pitdakota   I don't read every post Mindy D posts, nor do I read every post about Covid.  Therefore, I didn't see the post nor am I going reading through all the posts to find it.  However, unless the participants were all purposely exposed to the virus as part of the study, my doubt about the efficacy numbers remains.  Relying on random exposure isn't good enough for me since you don't even know if all the participants even got any exposure.