The World Health Organisation said that evening that adapting strategy to reflect changes in the development of the virus was important.
They also said "masks work" and urged countries in the situation Sweden is currently in to consider recommending them alongside social distancing measures.
The comments were made in reponse to a question from a Svenska Dagbladet reporter, who asked if the significant changes were "a sign of misjudgment" and whether masks would be useful.
Michael Ryan, executive director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, said his understanding was that there had been "very high compliance" with Sweden's mostly voluntary measures in spring, and cited other advantages such as a high proportion of single-person households, but noted the country had "not been without its difficulties".
He said the organisation's advice around mask-wearing was clear: "Masks work. Masks work in particular environments where you can't maintain physical distance, where you're in a crowded setting. We would like people to look at all aspects of how you protect yourself, to look at your risk-score in a sense on a weekly basis."
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
BREAKING: Pfizer and partner BioNTech announced their coronavirus vaccine is more than 95% effective in the final analysis of its massive Phase 3 trial
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Last I checked, about 4 or 5 days ago, we were over 800 per 100,000 and 12% positivity. It was going up every day and out school finally went remote. Just 2 weeks ago it was about 200 and 6%.
Our school district is going remote starting next week. Hillbilly heads must be exploding.
Our school district in rural Southern Illinois went fully distance this week, for 2 weeks. They plan on coming back Monday 11/30, 4 days after Thanksgiving. It is the dumbest thing I have seen in a very long time. Everyone will be getting together for Thanksgiving and those who are exposed will most likely be both contagious and asymptomatic the following week. The week following Thanksgiving is the absolute worst week to be coming back. They did say they would reevaluate it, based on how the numbers were looking. Since positive tests in our county are sky rocketing, my hope is that they grab a clue and cancel until after Christmas. A couple of weeks ago the school administration suggested going fully distance from 11/23 to after MLK day in January to keep the expected surge from Thanksgiving and Christmas from totally overwhelming the school district. The school board shot the plan down. My wife is a teacher and she and her coworkers are pissed off.
sounds like we're going to have an extended christmas holiday for the schools on the back end, knowing full well people will gather and they'll want to wait for the full incubation period to be over prior to kids returning to school.
BREAKING: Pfizer and partner BioNTech announced their coronavirus vaccine is more than 95% effective in the final analysis of its massive Phase 3 trial
That settles it. Lol. Let’s just say I’m skeptical...you know big Pharma and all.
have they add their findings peer reviewed? If not, then I trust this company about as much as I trusted the Russian vaccine.
it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
It was not up to 90%. It was more than 90%. They rolled the number out before knowing exactly what it was.
The studies are always done with these type of trials from a 3rd party company. The drug company finds out the number almost the same time the public does.
it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,302
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Further info from Pfizer and BioNTech's press release:
NEW YORK & MAINZ, Germany--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) today announced that, after conducting the final efficacy analysis in their ongoing Phase 3 study, their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, met all of the study’s primary efficacy endpoints. Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% (p<0.0001) in participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (first primary objective) and also in participants with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (second primary objective), in each case measured from 7 days after the second dose. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics. The observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%.
There were 10 severe cases of COVID-19 observed in the trial, with nine of the cases occurring in the placebo group and one in the BNT162b2 vaccinated group.
To date, the Data Monitoring Committee for the study has not reported any serious safety concerns related to the vaccine. A review of unblinded reactogenicity data from the final analysis which consisted of a randomized subset of at least 8,000 participants 18 years and older in the phase 2/3 study demonstrates that the vaccine was well tolerated, with most solicited adverse events resolving shortly after vaccination. The only Grade 3 (severe) solicited adverse events greater than or equal to 2% in frequency after the first or second dose was fatigue at 3.8% and headache at 2.0% following dose 2. Consistent with earlier shared results, older adults tended to report fewer and milder solicited adverse events following vaccination.
it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lol
it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lol
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.
it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lol
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.
It’s not a “small sample size”. The sample size is 43,000 people. The sample is the population studied, not the number that had infections.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lol
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.
See also the newer data I posted above. The 95% rate does not come from the data you are talking about.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I guess what I'd like to know is, do these in the study just go about their daily lives, or are they exposed to the virus in some way in a controlled setting?
I guess what I'd like to know is, do these in the study just go about their daily lives, or are they exposed to the virus in some way in a controlled setting?
These were all conventional trials as far as I can tell meaning they went about their normal lives. They are in talks of doing a challenge trial which purposefully tries to infect the volunteer with the virus. Here is a good write up on it.
I guess what I'd like to know is, do these in the study just go about their daily lives, or are they exposed to the virus in some way in a controlled setting?
These were all conventional trials as far as I can tell meaning they went about their normal lives. They are in talks of doing a challenge trial which purposefully tries to infect the volunteer with the virus. Here is a good write up on it.
I guess what I'd like to know is, do these in the study just go about their daily lives, or are they exposed to the virus in some way in a controlled setting?
These were all conventional trials as far as I can tell meaning they went about their normal lives. They are in talks of doing a challenge trial which purposefully tries to infect the volunteer with the virus. Here is a good write up on it.
You’re correct, these were population based trials and not challenge trials.
The thing that is sticking out to me the most right now is how the serious cases are so low with the vaccine being given to them. This is why we shut everything down so we could protect our vulnerable and not have our hospitals overrun. If these vaccines are as good as this trial says it is what an incredible accomplishment and by March we should be seeing a huge drop in hospitalizations and deaths.
I guess what I'd like to know is, do these in the study just go about their daily lives, or are they exposed to the virus in some way in a controlled setting?
These were all conventional trials as far as I can tell meaning they went about their normal lives. They are in talks of doing a challenge trial which purposefully tries to infect the volunteer with the virus. Here is a good write up on it.
You’re correct, these were population based trials and not challenge trials.
The thing that is sticking out to me the most right now is how the serious cases are so low with the vaccine being given to them. This is why we shut everything down so we could protect our vulnerable and not have our hospitals overrun. If these vaccines are as good as this trial says it is what an incredible accomplishment and by March we should be seeing a huge drop in hospitalizations and deaths.
This, plus efficacy appears high in the elderly population as well. Cause for optimism.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lol
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.
See also the newer data I posted above. The 95% rate does not come from the data you are talking about.
The article I saw you post is referring to the Pfizer vaccine. I was talking about the second one, forgot the name. Pfizer is probably similar, but they did I believe 30,000 vaccines, but only 95 people testing positive, So 29,905 trials are essential for naught. They only look at the 95 positive tests, of which 5 of them had the vaccine. Thus 5 out of 95 positive tests were those with a vaccine, and therefore 95% effective. Now like HFD said, I really don't know much about vaccine trials. I highly doubt any of really do to be honest. But these are the numbers the evening news use, and 5/95 is 95% so it completely makes sense.
If I were to design a trial, and I do teach science so I know a little about designing tests and control groups, etc. I would do exactly that too. Cast a wide net, all the negative test results are ignored. You look at the positive tests. Figure out what percent of the positive tests had the vaccine. You can test 10 million people, and if only 95 test positive for the virus, your sample size is really only 95. There seems to be enough data to say it is effective. But to give a precise number like 95%, you would need the number of positives to be several hundred or in the thousands.
I guess what I'd like to know is, do these in the study just go about their daily lives, or are they exposed to the virus in some way in a controlled setting?
These were all conventional trials as far as I can tell meaning they went about their normal lives. They are in talks of doing a challenge trial which purposefully tries to infect the volunteer with the virus. Here is a good write up on it.
You’re correct, these were population based trials and not challenge trials.
The thing that is sticking out to me the most right now is how the serious cases are so low with the vaccine being given to them. This is why we shut everything down so we could protect our vulnerable and not have our hospitals overrun. If these vaccines are as good as this trial says it is what an incredible accomplishment and by March we should be seeing a huge drop in hospitalizations and deaths.
i'm still in the "too good to be true" phase. like this is the middle of the horror movie and the protagonists think they've killed the monster....we'll find out later on that a high percentage get some type of neurodegenerative disease or something.
It will be ok . Im very sure . I will end up with the oxford vaccine simply because its what we will have many more of by the time all the vulnerable have had the mrna vaccines and are used up
brixton 93
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lol
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.
See also the newer data I posted above. The 95% rate does not come from the data you are talking about.
The article I saw you post is referring to the Pfizer vaccine. I was talking about the second one, forgot the name. Pfizer is probably similar, but they did I believe 30,000 vaccines, but only 95 people testing positive, So 29,905 trials are essential for naught. They only look at the 95 positive tests, of which 5 of them had the vaccine. Thus 5 out of 95 positive tests were those with a vaccine, and therefore 95% effective. Now like HFD said, I really don't know much about vaccine trials. I highly doubt any of really do to be honest. But these are the numbers the evening news use, and 5/95 is 95% so it completely makes sense.
It does seem small on paper but I am no expert on this just as I am sure you are not either. The people that are are saying that this is excellent news. They are not saying to be cautious since the sample size is so small. Also you really could be doubling your positive tests number if there was no vaccine.
170 people got the virus. 8 people had the vaccine. You could look at that as 331 people would have gotten the virus if there was no vaccine. Times that by a 10 million and you get the idea if the settings are all the same. We will be getting more and more info in the coming months and by early March we should have a great idea where we are heading.
I guess what I'd like to know is, do these in the study just go about their daily lives, or are they exposed to the virus in some way in a controlled setting?
These were all conventional trials as far as I can tell meaning they went about their normal lives. They are in talks of doing a challenge trial which purposefully tries to infect the volunteer with the virus. Here is a good write up on it.
You’re correct, these were population based trials and not challenge trials.
The thing that is sticking out to me the most right now is how the serious cases are so low with the vaccine being given to them. This is why we shut everything down so we could protect our vulnerable and not have our hospitals overrun. If these vaccines are as good as this trial says it is what an incredible accomplishment and by March we should be seeing a huge drop in hospitalizations and deaths.
i'm still in the "too good to be true" phase. like this is the middle of the horror movie and the protagonists think they've killed the monster....we'll find out later on that a high percentage get some type of neurodegenerative disease or something.
I think plenty get those diseases anyway. It will be a feeling of a leap of faith but science is so fast like technology. Its moving before our eyes. When we listen to science and not hearsay it is very clear To me anyway
brixton 93
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
I guess what I'd like to know is, do these in the study just go about their daily lives, or are they exposed to the virus in some way in a controlled setting?
These were all conventional trials as far as I can tell meaning they went about their normal lives. They are in talks of doing a challenge trial which purposefully tries to infect the volunteer with the virus. Here is a good write up on it.
You’re correct, these were population based trials and not challenge trials.
The thing that is sticking out to me the most right now is how the serious cases are so low with the vaccine being given to them. This is why we shut everything down so we could protect our vulnerable and not have our hospitals overrun. If these vaccines are as good as this trial says it is what an incredible accomplishment and by March we should be seeing a huge drop in hospitalizations and deaths.
i'm still in the "too good to be true" phase. like this is the middle of the horror movie and the protagonists think they've killed the monster....we'll find out later on that a high percentage get some type of neurodegenerative disease or something.
I think plenty get those diseases anyway. It will be a feeling of a leap of faith but science is so fast like technology. Its moving before our eyes. When we listen to science and not hearsay it is very clear To me anyway
for sure. i'm not an anti-vaxxer by any stretch. just had the flu vaccine last week. but usually vaccines take years to look at possible long term issues. the simple fact is, we don't have the time to know. we can't live like this for a decade. i'm just really hoping there's no adverse effects that we'll find out in 2030.
it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lol
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.
See also the newer data I posted above. The 95% rate does not come from the data you are talking about.
The article I saw you post is referring to the Pfizer vaccine. I was talking about the second one, forgot the name. Pfizer is probably similar, but they did I believe 30,000 vaccines, but only 95 people testing positive, So 29,905 trials are essential for naught. They only look at the 95 positive tests, of which 5 of them had the vaccine. Thus 5 out of 95 positive tests were those with a vaccine, and therefore 95% effective. Now like HFD said, I really don't know much about vaccine trials. I highly doubt any of really do to be honest. But these are the numbers the evening news use, and 5/95 is 95% so it completely makes sense.
If I were to design a trial, and I do teach science so I know a little about designing tests and control groups, etc. I would do exactly that too. Cast a wide net, all the negative test results are ignored. You look at the positive tests. Figure out what percent of the positive tests had the vaccine. You can test 10 million people, and if only 95 test positive for the virus, your sample size is really only 95. There seems to be enough data to say it is effective. But to give a precise number like 95%, you would need the number of positives to be several hundred or in the thousands.
No, that’s not how the analysis works.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,795
it does seem odd to me that pfizer first said, what, up to 90% effective, moderna says 94.5%, now all of a sudden pfizer is 95%? what is this, a pissing match for king of the pandemic?
I haven’t looked deeply into it other than just evening news. But the 95% the other company (names slips my mind right now) advertised seemed odd to me too. They put up numbers that said it was tested on several thousand, out of those 95 got covid and of those 95 only 5 had the vaccine. 5 out of 95 seems like too small of a sample to say 95% effective.
yeah, when I read that, I thought "either that's too small a sample or I don't understand this". I'm guessing it's the latter. lol
Wish it was the latter, but 5/95 is 95%. If that math didn’t add up I’d assume you’re right. But it’s exactly what they advertise so that’s a huge coincidence if that isn’t how they determined it. Which is an extremely small sample. More like 95% +/- 50% due to small sample size.
See also the newer data I posted above. The 95% rate does not come from the data you are talking about.
The article I saw you post is referring to the Pfizer vaccine. I was talking about the second one, forgot the name. Pfizer is probably similar, but they did I believe 30,000 vaccines, but only 95 people testing positive, So 29,905 trials are essential for naught. They only look at the 95 positive tests, of which 5 of them had the vaccine. Thus 5 out of 95 positive tests were those with a vaccine, and therefore 95% effective. Now like HFD said, I really don't know much about vaccine trials. I highly doubt any of really do to be honest. But these are the numbers the evening news use, and 5/95 is 95% so it completely makes sense.
If I were to design a trial, and I do teach science so I know a little about designing tests and control groups, etc. I would do exactly that too. Cast a wide net, all the negative test results are ignored. You look at the positive tests. Figure out what percent of the positive tests had the vaccine. You can test 10 million people, and if only 95 test positive for the virus, your sample size is really only 95. There seems to be enough data to say it is effective. But to give a precise number like 95%, you would need the number of positives to be several hundred or in the thousands.
Comments
The World Health Organisation said that evening that adapting strategy to reflect changes in the development of the virus was important.
They also said "masks work" and urged countries in the situation Sweden is currently in to consider recommending them alongside social distancing measures.
The comments were made in reponse to a question from a Svenska Dagbladet reporter, who asked if the significant changes were "a sign of misjudgment" and whether masks would be useful.
Michael Ryan, executive director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, said his understanding was that there had been "very high compliance" with Sweden's mostly voluntary measures in spring, and cited other advantages such as a high proportion of single-person households, but noted the country had "not been without its difficulties".
He said the organisation's advice around mask-wearing was clear: "Masks work. Masks work in particular environments where you can't maintain physical distance, where you're in a crowded setting. We would like people to look at all aspects of how you protect yourself, to look at your risk-score in a sense on a weekly basis."
www.headstonesband.com
have they add their findings peer reviewed? If not, then I trust this company about as much as I trusted the Russian vaccine.
www.headstonesband.com
A new Danish study shows that mouth protection cannot be proven to protect against covid-19.
Rigshospitalet writes in a press release.
The studies are always done with these type of trials from a 3rd party company. The drug company finds out the number almost the same time the public does.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
NEW YORK & MAINZ, Germany--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) today announced that, after conducting the final efficacy analysis in their ongoing Phase 3 study, their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, met all of the study’s primary efficacy endpoints. Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% (p<0.0001) in participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (first primary objective) and also in participants with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (second primary objective), in each case measured from 7 days after the second dose. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics. The observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%.
There were 10 severe cases of COVID-19 observed in the trial, with nine of the cases occurring in the placebo group and one in the BNT162b2 vaccinated group.
To date, the Data Monitoring Committee for the study has not reported any serious safety concerns related to the vaccine. A review of unblinded reactogenicity data from the final analysis which consisted of a randomized subset of at least 8,000 participants 18 years and older in the phase 2/3 study demonstrates that the vaccine was well tolerated, with most solicited adverse events resolving shortly after vaccination. The only Grade 3 (severe) solicited adverse events greater than or equal to 2% in frequency after the first or second dose was fatigue at 3.8% and headache at 2.0% following dose 2. Consistent with earlier shared results, older adults tended to report fewer and milder solicited adverse events following vaccination.
article continues in link https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/11/17/21540773/covid-19-vaccine-human-challenge-trial-ethics
Pfizer is probably similar, but they did I believe 30,000 vaccines, but only 95 people testing positive, So 29,905 trials are essential for naught. They only look at the 95 positive tests, of which 5 of them had the vaccine. Thus 5 out of 95 positive tests were those with a vaccine, and therefore 95% effective.
Now like HFD said, I really don't know much about vaccine trials. I highly doubt any of really do to be honest. But these are the numbers the evening news use, and 5/95 is 95% so it completely makes sense.
If I were to design a trial, and I do teach science so I know a little about designing tests and control groups, etc. I would do exactly that too. Cast a wide net, all the negative test results are ignored. You look at the positive tests. Figure out what percent of the positive tests had the vaccine. You can test 10 million people, and if only 95 test positive for the virus, your sample size is really only 95.
There seems to be enough data to say it is effective. But to give a precise number like 95%, you would need the number of positives to be several hundred or in the thousands.
www.headstonesband.com
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
170 people got the virus. 8 people had the vaccine. You could look at that as 331 people would have gotten the virus if there was no vaccine. Times that by a 10 million and you get the idea if the settings are all the same. We will be getting more and more info in the coming months and by early March we should have a great idea where we are heading.
To me anyway
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
www.headstonesband.com