Opinion Pfizer Covid Vaccine Efficiency - Not as high as claimed

[jx820]

You claim that they’ll just update their packet info, “in accordance with the FDA and pharma code requirements. Not a big deal, happens all the time with pharmaceuticals.”

Seems they (Pfizer) have struggled to act within the law or ethically (per their legal history), which is a direct challenge to your naive assertion. Honestly not sure why you bring up “lizard men,” but seems pretty normal for vaccine zealots to straw man...

I've actually worked in the pharma industry and know a good bit about package inserts updates and internal processes around them so my assumtion isn't nieve. It's an informed opinion based on experience.

Stats update literally all the damned time. When that happens a new package insert is produced that changes a .0001 to a .0002 the document is revised in a document control system and from that moment sales reps have to try to take every bit of branded patient info out of circulation. Then every sample and branded marketing material in the warehouse has to be repackaged and new orders are shipped to the field.

I never said Pfizer was a paragon of moral and ethical behavior, but there's literally no reason why they wouldn't just update the packet insert and get on with their business. First of all, the their full production capacity was sold out before it was even manufactured. It's not like this is some financial catastrophy that upends their product. Second, it's one line changing in the 27th paragraph of the 2nd page of a paper that no one reads and the cost of the change is built in as a standard business practice so it doesn't even hurt to do it. Why would they bother breaking any laws around that? Crimes generally have a motive and there's none here.

 

[Wolfbrigade]

"Covid vaccine 95% effective" headlines are misleading, to say the least.

https://gis.blog.ryerson.ca/2020/12...ging-and-relative-vs-absolute-risk-reduction/

I am quoting most crucial passages:

The concept of risk, and our ability to assess risk, has also made the headlines in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine trials. Using data from a Nov 26 opinion piece in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), we can see that vaccine efficacy in terms of the relative reduction of the risk of getting ill is around 95%. For example, in the Pfizer trial, assuming an equal split of the 44,000 participants into the vaccine and placebo groups, 0.74% of the placebo group fell ill but only 0.04% of the vaccinated participants did. The relative risk reduction is calculated as the difference between these two incidences (0.7%) divided by the placebo value (0.74%), arriving at the conclusion that 95% of COVID-19 could be avoided if people got immunized. However, there is another way of looking that the same data: The risk reduction in absolute terms is only 0.7%, from an already very low risk of 0.74% to a minimal risk of 0.04%. Thus, risk reduction is 95%, but it also is just 0.7%.


Which one of these measures should we base an individual vaccine decision on? This is a very personal decision (or should be!), but in terms of publicly presenting and discussing the vaccine trial results, a 2019 article in the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin is revealing. Box 3 explains the difference between absolute and relative risk reduction. Note the author’s statement “Relative risks, then, can exaggerate the perception of difference, and this is especially prominent when the absolute risks are very small.” What would you think if the headlines about the trial successes had read “Shot Reduces COVID-19 Risk by 0.7%” instead of “COVID-19 Shot 95% Effective”? The author of “How to communicate evidence to patients”, Dr. Alexandra Freeman, advocates for reporting multiple metrics for better context. With respect to the ongoing pandemic, the powers that be should ensure transparent communication of scientific evidence. This also includes a host of other issues with the vaccine trials that Dr. Peter Doshi raises in the above-cited BMJ commentary.

 

[Queen B]

There was a thread on this.

It comes from a known anti-vaxxer, and is based on a bunch of "what ifs" - What if the every single one of the 20x symptoms mysteriously bypassed the PCR test.

His point is still valid though, that we need more transparency in the study


as for the risk reduction isnt that the same methodology as seasonal flu? 0.04% vs .74% is still a big difference in total populated numbers
Its still 95% effective

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Did anyone go into this thinking the study meant that 100% of people studied would catch covid during the trial if not vaccinated?

 

[Queen B]

Did anyone go into this thinking the study meant that 100% of people studied would catch covid during the trial if not vaccinated?

The only way to really tell is to have a trumpvirus positive person cough on both control and placebo groups, but there were obvious ethical concerns.

The control group for all we know couldve taken better social distancing measures.

 

[phoenixikki]

Always thought that those efficacy rates were completely silly.
So to sum this up, they want us to take a 'vaccine' that has serious side-effects, for a 'disease' that kills a very tiny percent of the population (0,12% in the US), who is already sick or too old anyways. And even if you get sick most people have mild (and sometimes no) symptoms, and if you do take it all the restrictions stay in place.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

The only way to really tell is to have a trumpvirus positive person cough on both control and placebo groups, but there were obvious ethical concerns.

The control group for all we know couldve taken better social distancing measures.

It's pretty obvious that it's agenda based bullshit when they're saying that even if noone in the vaccine group got corona at all that according to this logic the vaccine would only be 0.74% effective.

 

[heloder]

Your "absolute risk reduction" is an entirely asinine way of looking at it, since that can change immensely depending on any number of factors. Hey guess what? If you live in a cabin in the woods by yourself your absolute risk of getting Covid is about 0%. If you live in New York and take the Subway to work with a thousand other people every day, it's a tad higher. If you live in an area with no active cases, your absolute risk is very low. If that area suffers an outbreak because nobody is vaccinated, then your absolute risk increases tremendously.

Do you know what doesn't change? Your relative risk, which appears to be about 95% lower when vaccinated.

edit - Another thing that it doesn't seem to mention is that if a community is vaccinated, that also reduces your absolute risk, since fewer cases decreases the infection rate, which results in fewer cases, which reduces the infection rate, et cetera.

 

[Queen B]

Always thought that those efficacy rates were completely silly.
So to sum this up, they want us to take a 'vaccine' that has serious side-effects, for a 'disease' that kills a very tiny percent of the population, who is already sick or too old anyways. And even if you get sick most people have mild (and sometimes no) symptoms, and if you do take it all the restrictions stay in place.

The "tiny percent of the population" is already 400k deaths deep here, and according to most experts, the vaccines can keep you from spreading to them

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Always thought that those efficacy rates were completely silly.
So to sum this up, they want us to take a 'vaccine' that has serious side-effects, for a 'disease' that kills a very tiny percent of the population, who is already sick or too old anyways. And even if you get sick most people have mild (and sometimes no) symptoms, and if you do take it all the restrictions stay in place.

Whats the percentage of serious side effects?

 

[Queen B]

Did anyone go into this thinking the study meant that 100% of people studied would catch covid during the trial if not vaccinated?

The other thing to consider though is that this whole "real life" simulation to get infected took place in the summer and early fall, when the virus wasnt as spread as it is now.
The comparison still stands, its still .04% vs .74%, but sample size is still really small and uncontrolled.

 

[nostradumbass]

The "tiny percent of the population" is already 400k deaths deep here, and according to most experts, the vaccines can keep you from spreading to them

Did they change their minds again on "keeps you from spreading"?

 

[Wadtucket]

The only way to really tell is to have a Bunkerboyracismvirus positive person cough on both control and placebo groups, but there were obvious ethical concerns.

Ftfy

You're slippin queenie

 

[Wadtucket]

The "tiny percent of the population" is already 400k deaths deep here, and according to most experts, the vaccines can keep you from spreading to them

399,999 who were already on death's door, roughly speaking

How many shares do you own in Soylent? Be honest

 

[Queen B]

399,999 who were already on death's door, roughly speaking

How many shares do you own in Soylent? Be honest

More than 2.5 million years lost. Thats like 1000 @Seano 's

 

[Wadtucket]

More than 2.5 million years lost. Thats like 1000 @Seano 's

2.5 million? That's corona denialism numbers. It's at least 6 million!

 

[JDragon]

Oh boy, what a completely fucking retarded way to interpret data.

Let's make this even easier. Let's assume 1% of people die. With the vaccine, no one dies.

"It's just an absolute risk reduction of 1%!!!"

yeah lol

From 0.74% to 0.04% is making things almost 20 times better. Or, with 100 million infections, a reduction of 700,000 deaths.

Tbh not sure why TS thought this was thread worthy

 

[Neph]

To provide a clear disclaimer - I am concerned about the proclaimed efficacy and safety of any vaccine and the consequences of rushing it out.

This, however, is bad math that is easily refuted. Comparing populations and the % infected must be on a relative basis from one to another, not subtracting one from another, as the 'absolute risk reduction' is utterly meaningless. Let me give you an example:

Presume instead of the numbers being .74% and .04%, they were 50.74% and 50.04%.

If you were to use the misleading and meaningless 'absolute' figure provided in this blog, it would still be a 0.7% reduction in 'absolute risk'. However, the actual efficacy of the hypothetical treatment is 1 - ( 50.04 / 50.74 ) = 1.38%.

In short this is bad math designed to trick you into thinking it's something else.

 

[Neph]

Oh boy, what a completely fucking retarded way to interpret data.

Let's make this even easier. Let's assume 1% of people die. With the vaccine, no one dies.

"It's just an absolute risk reduction of 1%!!!"

yeah lol

From 0.74% to 0.04% is making things almost 20 times better. Or, with 100 million infections, a reduction of 700,000 deaths.

Tbh not sure why TS thought this was thread worthy

This is correct, the same as my explanation.

 

[DavidsGhost]

People like to pretend they know what that means. And then they yell at people on that pretense.