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.
Only those exposed to the virus are counted in terms of determining effectiveness. So you take a large group, 30,000. Give half the vaccine, have a placebo. You compare the number of positive tests in each group. Vaccine gets 5 and placebo gets 90. So 5 out of 95 had the vaccine, therefore 95% effective. Thats what happened here. You can't make claims based on people who were never exposed to the virus, that's why they use the infected numbers to determine effectiveness. Otherwise Kool-Aide would be a great vaccine. Half my school drank kool-aide last year and we had exactly zero test positive.
The others are still studied for side effects and safety. But as far as determining effectiveness, you can only look at those exposed to the virus. If everyone was given the covid virus, you could do this study with a much smaller sample. How do you think they do it, count everyone, even those never exposed?
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.
You cant give a vaccine to 39,000 people and say only so many got sick. You compare how many got sick with the vaccine to how many got sick without the vaccine (placebo). So in terms of effectiveness, the study is only as big as the number of infected people. For safety and sideeffects they would study the entire group.
This week, Pfizer and Biontech announced that the Phase 3 study of their vaccine shows 90 percent protection against covid-19.
Johan Giesecke visited Godmorgon worldwide in P1 on Sunday, and said that it will be a while before a vaccine could be fully tested and before large quantities of doses can be manufactured.
- To hang up their epidemic fight on the arrival of a vaccine, it is a bit early, I think, says the former state epidemiologist.
Pfizer's CEO has called their results "a great day for humanity", and Giesecke also has a certain understanding that people rejoice.
- It's a light in the tunnel in some way, isn 't it? But as I said, in the short or medium term it will not help much in the fight against pandemics.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
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'm not saying it isn't excellent news, it obviously is. I just think the sample is too small to be arguing and claiming 90 vs 95% at this point.
our chief public health officer says we might start getting vaccine rollout in january.
Good news for us canucks. I hope my parents can get it sooner than later because they are extremely high risk.
my mom is too, and both parents are quite nervous about it. they can't snowbird this year, which really sucks for them, but at least if they can resume some semblance of normal life, maybe that's a light at the end of the tunnel
our chief public health officer says we might start getting vaccine rollout in january.
Good news for us canucks. I hope my parents can get it sooner than later because they are extremely high risk.
my mom is too, and both parents are quite nervous about it. they can't snowbird this year, which really sucks for them, but at least if they can resume some semblance of normal life, maybe that's a light at the end of the tunnel
Exactly, light at the end of the tunnel. Give them something to hold onto for the next couple of months, especially with Christmas being a write off.
Post edited by dignin on
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,920
My son s school just went remote for the next three weeks. He is not happy. :(
Sorry to hear that, although it might be the safest way to go.
It hadn't occurred to me how difficult on-line schooling can be for many kids in rural or semi rural areas until I recently ran into a neighbor. I told him I was bummed that my ISP went out of service and the only available service in our neighborhood is HughesNet satellite and I can no longer stream shows and can barely even download a 3 minute YouTube video. He's in the same boat only worse because he said, "Yeah, it's a real bummer for us because my kids are supposed to be in school on-line." OMG, I thought, What a bummer! It's really tough on some kids and parents these days.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
My son s school just went remote for the next three weeks. He is not happy. :(
That sucks for the little guy, but if three weeks is the extent of it, consider yourself lucky. My kids have not seen the inside of a classroom since March. I guarantee they do not step foot in a classroom for the remainder of this school year either. I know we’re old, but go back to 2nd or 4th grade in your mind and imagine having that entire school year’s experience erased. I don’t like thinking about it. It’s too depressing.
My son s school just went remote for the next three weeks. He is not happy. :(
That sucks for the little guy, but if three weeks is the extent of it, consider yourself lucky. My kids have not seen the inside of a classroom since March. I guarantee they do not step foot in a classroom for the remainder of this school year either. I know we’re old, but go back to 2nd or 4th grade in your mind and imagine having that entire school year’s experience erased. I don’t like thinking about it. It’s too depressing.
Yeah, my kids are in the same boat. My favorite grade school year's were 3 - 6. Fun carefree times where playground time was dedicated to tackle football, soccer and baseball. Winter meant king of the hill and snowball fights with some white washing. Although I did chip about every front tooth I had those years out on the playground. Then there was computer time, when we got it, that was dedicated to Oregon Trail, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego, Shufflepuck Cafe and Star Wars.
My son s school just went remote for the next three weeks. He is not happy. :(
That sucks for the little guy, but if three weeks is the extent of it, consider yourself lucky. My kids have not seen the inside of a classroom since March. I guarantee they do not step foot in a classroom for the remainder of this school year either. I know we’re old, but go back to 2nd or 4th grade in your mind and imagine having that entire school year’s experience erased. I don’t like thinking about it. It’s too depressing.
This is why Sweden hesitated closing down schools for those age groups.
They loose a lot.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
My son s school just went remote for the next three weeks. He is not happy. :(
That sucks for the little guy, but if three weeks is the extent of it, consider yourself lucky. My kids have not seen the inside of a classroom since March. I guarantee they do not step foot in a classroom for the remainder of this school year either. I know we’re old, but go back to 2nd or 4th grade in your mind and imagine having that entire school year’s experience erased. I don’t like thinking about it. It’s too depressing.
Yeah it is first year of middle school so he is completely bummed. He wanted to do clubs, try out for baseball, get a locker for the first time...
^ tbergs - I completely agree. I have great memories of those school years for a lot of the same reasons. Recess, gym class, etc. The social interaction is so important.
SC - Again, I fully agree. I think Sweden has a very good point as it relates to keeping kids in school at those ages.
Mcgruff - That's rough. I'm thinking about myself at that age and all of those things were so cool and exciting. Hopefully it is just 3 weeks. For us, it is our school district. Some neighboring districts have taken the same stance. Others have offered a hybrid model (gives parents the choice) while some have been in the classroom 5 days a week. It's frustrating that we're in one of the district's that the decision was made for us, especially when it is not the one we would choose.
Biggs that is crazy. Is there any plan moving forward ? We have like five different phases in our district. I think we are phase 1.5 as they call it.
Il is pretty fucked now, aren't they? We had a project slated to start soon across IL and complete in December and they postponed since the places (gaming) need to close down at Level 3.
This is going to be the update for lots of states, soon. Get ready....
Biggs that is crazy. Is there any plan moving forward ? We have like five different phases in our district. I think we are phase 1.5 as they call it.
Il is pretty fucked now, aren't they? We had a project slated to start soon across IL and complete in December and they postponed since the places (gaming) need to close down at Level 3.
This is going to be the update for lots of states, soon. Get ready....
Did your kids school open up this week as planned?
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,795
Biggs that is crazy. Is there any plan moving forward ? We have like five different phases in our district. I think we are phase 1.5 as they call it.
Il is pretty fucked now, aren't they? We had a project slated to start soon across IL and complete in December and they postponed since the places (gaming) need to close down at Level 3.
This is going to be the update for lots of states, soon. Get ready....
Did your kids school open up this week as planned?
Yeah, he is still home but they had kids in classrooms for the first time since March. Less than 50% of his class opted back in.
Unfortunately, they will all be remote soon enough I figure.
"The news comes amid record infections across the US, with the Trump
administration repeatedly failing to get a grip on the Covid-19 crisis.
Most recently Trump has refused to concede he lost the presidential
election to Joe Biden who this week said “more people may die” if he
continues to hamper his transition."
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,304
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
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,920
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
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,920
Comments
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/909548897/how-volunteers-and-scientists-help-determine-if-a-vaccine-works
Only those exposed to the virus are counted in terms of determining effectiveness. So you take a large group, 30,000. Give half the vaccine, have a placebo. You compare the number of positive tests in each group. Vaccine gets 5 and placebo gets 90. So 5 out of 95 had the vaccine, therefore 95% effective.
Thats what happened here. You can't make claims based on people who were never exposed to the virus, that's why they use the infected numbers to determine effectiveness. Otherwise Kool-Aide would be a great vaccine. Half my school drank kool-aide last year and we had exactly zero test positive.
The others are still studied for side effects and safety. But as far as determining effectiveness, you can only look at those exposed to the virus. If everyone was given the covid virus, you could do this study with a much smaller sample.
How do you think they do it, count everyone, even those never exposed?
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectivenessqa.htm
You cant give a vaccine to 39,000 people and say only so many got sick. You compare how many got sick with the vaccine to how many got sick without the vaccine (placebo). So in terms of effectiveness, the study is only as big as the number of infected people. For safety and sideeffects they would study the entire group.
www.headstonesband.com
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
They loose a lot.
We had a project slated to start soon across IL and complete in December and they postponed since the places (gaming) need to close down at Level 3.
This is going to be the update for lots of states, soon. Get ready....
Unfortunately, they will all be remote soon enough I figure.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
US passes 250,000 deaths from coronavirus
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
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
Stay well, all!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/11/18/sweden-coronavirus-surge-policy/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©