The coronavirus

oftenreading said:

PJNB said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/11/17/21540773/covid-19-vaccine-human-challenge-trial-ethics

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. 

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

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

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJNB said:

oftenreading said:

PJNB said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/11/17/21540773/covid-19-vaccine-human-challenge-trial-ethics

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

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

Anyone see I Am Legend?

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

That is how it works, They compare positive rates. Here's another source.
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.

PJNB said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.