Covid19

[AdamR28]

On 12/18/2021 at 8:57 AM, JT! said:

95% efficacy over all the age ranges. I'm sure efficacy is much higher in younger healthy people, and much lower in older or people with pre existing conditions. 95% is an average.

Thanks for pointing this out dude, honestly I didn't know that. We've all been constantly told it is X% effective, but delving into the actual numbers shows some weirdness - it behaves exactly as you'd mentioned, pro rata with age, apart from lower efficacy in their trials for patients aged 70-85 than 85 and above. Does that mean it IS actually working in such a manner, or the testing is unreliable? 

Either way, I guess they are entitled to blanket statement it with "95% effective", but I think allowing people to make their own choices - by clearly publishing the actual numbers - would be preferable. It might even get vaccine-sceptics to take it up, given that the apparent efficacy rates for younger people are even higher than the widely published rate.

[Brian Bleech]

1 hour ago, AdamR28 said:

Indeed. And marking ones own homework when people's lives are at stake, and there is a lot of money to be made, shouldn't be permitted IMO.

But then again, who would fund such studies on a completely impartial basis?

By US law Pfizer (and all drug companies) are required to have an independent DMC (Data Monitoring Commission) for new treatments to verify the results of the study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4118004/

The study will then be assessed by the FDA before the drug is approved. 
 

The results of the study are available here 

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04960202

The study will also be submitted to a publication for peer-review. Which will be independent. As stated in the Pfizer press release. 

 https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-announces-additional-phase-23-study-results

[AdamR28]

That's a lot of reading... thanks Mike.

The drug test results Pfizer posted look promising. Going from a tiny number of deaths / hospitalisations to an even smaller number is an improvement.

Not sure how I feel about the DMC's work being funded by the study 'sponsor'. 

'A clinical trial DMC is a group of individuals with pertinent expertise that reviews on a regular basis accumulating data from one or more ongoing clinical trials’. The FDA guidance further explains that ‘The DMC advises the sponsor regarding the continuing safety of trial subjects and those yet to be recruited to the trial, as well as the continuing validity and scientific merit of the trial’.

It is good that there is an extra level of accountability, but without a complete separation between those who stand to make billions and those reviewing their studies, it still feels like marking your own homework to me. I cannot imagine how a truly independent review of such studies could be implemented though!

Put it this way... if Coca Cola carried out a study into the effects of drinking a can of their beverage per day, then paid a 3rd party to 'review' that, you can bet your ass the results would be different to if Pepsi did exactly the same study (on Coca Cola) 

 

[JT!]

18 hours ago, AdamR28 said:

Does that mean it IS actually working in such a manner, or the testing is unreliable? 

I think the issue is that the vaccine effectiveness wears off as time passes... and then not even mentioning variants. So that 95% was probably accurate before delta, and up to 3 or 4 months after everyone got their 2nd dose. But beyond that we were in uncharted waters.

[AdamR28]

Ah, I didn't explain myself well... I went hunting for vaccine efficacy after your info about it varying with age, and found this from Pfizer:

100% for people ages 12 to 15;

95% for people age 16 and older;

94% for people age 65 and older;

61% for people 70 and older;

70% for people 80 and older.

(Which they average out and publish as 94%)

 

My point for discussion was that the drop in efficacy at age 70-80 seems at odds with what you'd expect. Could it be possible that this indicates a lack of reliability in the testing method, or statistical significance of this study as a whole? I don't know enough to comment. Just an observation on what looks like an odd set of data at first glance.

[Luke Rainbird]

In all honesty, I think I find it more worrying that they claim 100% efficacy for ages 12-15 

(and the odd dip for 70+ category)

[Al_Fel]

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

Have a little scan through some of the major countries. Then check China out...

Pretty interesting the numbers coming out of China.

 

Also if you look at a lot of the numbers it does seem that that vaccines are having some affect on the numbers.

[AdamR28]

Weird. Perhaps a reporting thing - as in, we are so 'strong' we don't have any cases, or there are so many people living so remotely they don't have chance to log deaths, or they aren't doing any testing cos they have sold all their testing kits to us lot Or something more sinister...?

[Luke Rainbird]

I mean, China haven't got the best track record of transparency and being a team player 

[Brian Bleech]

9 hours ago, Luke Rainbird said:

In all honesty, I think I find it more worrying that they claim 100% efficacy for ages 12-15 

(and the odd dip for 70+ category)

They aren’t claiming it is 100% effective at stopping the virus in all 12-15 year olds. 

They are saying that in the study of 2,228 trial participants that there were no covid cases in those that received the vaccine. 30 people in the study who received the placebo got covid. A good study will have roughly 50/50 in each group. 

In the real world, if it was administered to millions of 12-15 year old would it be 100% effective, of course not, but it is a good sign it would be extremely high. 

 

 

[AdamR28]

3 minutes ago, Brian Bleech said:

They are saying that in the study of 2,228 trial participants that there were no covid cases in those that received the vaccine.

I'd love to find the study and have a proper read, for interest's sake, if the study design is detailed.

 

I read an article yesterday about how certain areas of society can be targeted for research because the study designers know that these people will 'output' the data they really want to see.

An example might be a newspaper, known to be read by Tory supporters having an average readership age of 55, running an opinion poll about Brexit (in or out). It's clear what the result of that poll will be. If they get 5000 participants they only have to list how many people were asked, not WHO they were, and then this can be used as 'marketing' to try and make others follow suit.

Same deal with any trial - choose 2228 12-15 year olds who are autistic and home-schooled, and there is a pretty good chance there will be no Covid cases within that group - jabbed or not (extreme example but you get what I mean).

[Luke Rainbird]

1 hour ago, Brian Bleech said:

They aren’t claiming it is 100% effective at stopping the virus in all 12-15 year olds. 

They are saying that in the study of 2,228 trial participants that there were no covid cases in those that received the vaccine. 30 people in the study who received got covid. A good study will 

In the real world, if it was administered to millions of 12-15 year old would it be 100% effective, of course not, but it is a good sign it would be extremely high. 

That's cool - I've not seen the study or any supporting info, only Ads' post 

(Which shows how easily a few figures can me misinterpreted and spread though, I suppose!)

[AdamR28]

14 minutes ago, Luke Rainbird said:

(Which shows how easily a few figures can me misinterpreted and spread though, I suppose!)

True enough! Works both ways, too.

[manuel]

That is odd about the 70-80s. Maybe there are still lots of unhealthy 70s who haven’t died yet but are about to, and above 80 you’re looking at only relatively healthy people surviving? They would mostly be above average age at that point? 

[AdamR28]

That could explain it... though all the stats say (once in adulthood) your average chance of death within the next year increases year-on-year, without exception. Example:

Loving the testosterone-related spike around age 13-14

[MadManMike]

Guess which AnTi-VaXxEr now has Covid? 

And to answer the incoming question: No, I still don't wish I'd had the jabs.

[AdamR28]

Father Christmas?

[forteh]

Be interesting to see how you cope with it, seeing as you had it in the early waves.

I reckon you'll just have a couple of days of flu like symptoms.

Keep us updated

[isitafox]

49 minutes ago, forteh said:

Be interesting to see how you cope with it, seeing as you had it in the early waves.

I reckon you'll just have a couple of days of flu like symptoms.

Keep us updated

Was thinking the same as I remember that first time round hit you like a tonne of bricks! 

[AdamR28]

Yeah man hope its not too bad.

Interested to see what symptoms you get... some intriguing analysis here from 13:50 onwards:

 

[MadManMike]

I'm live on Twitch at the moment, albeit sat down and drinking water rather than beer. Three days of mild flu like symptoms and I'm getting better it seems.

Sucks that it hit just before Christmas and ruined plans, but hey ho!

[MadManMike]

Oh and symptoms:

Massive hangover type headache. All over aches. Fever and chills. Upset stomach after meals.

It's very different to the first time round, so I guess it's Omicron. The first time I didn't really feel ill, I just felt wiped out and was short of breath - this time felt more like flu.

[Ali C]

Hope you are recovered soon!

 

As a point of discussion, Peter McCullough says you can’t get Covid twice.

 

This has been something that seemed dubious to me as a lot of people have said they’ve had it twice including you. I wonder if I’ve just worked out what he was trying to say though. Once you have Covid the virus signature can still be in your body, if you then get a bad cold or the flu and get a test it could possible the signature is picked up and flagged as Covid when it isn’t…not saying this is what’s happening but it would be interesting if everyone just has a flu but are being told it’s Covid.

 

In Australia a vaccine was tested that ended up with people being tested positive for HIV! They didn’t actually have HIV but the modified proteins in the vaccine had a very similar signature which was picked up when tested.

 

[AdamR28]

13 hours ago, MadManMike said:

Oh and symptoms:

Massive hangover type headache. All over aches. Fever and chills. Upset stomach after meals.

this time felt more like flu.

Exactly the same symptoms I've had this week, plus sore / scratchy throat. Negative Covid test.

Listed Flu (NHS website) and Omicron (wherever you look) symptoms are pretty much identical now.

Almost zero flu cases in the UK in winter 2020: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/995284/Surveillance_of_influenza_and_other_seasonal_respiratory_viruses_in_the_UK_2020_to_2021-1.pdf (pages 24, 27, 30). I am quite sure that will be the same this winter when to reports come out.

Covid getting milder and is becoming the new flu, or was always just a strong strain of flu (at first glance, peak hospital admissions and ICU patients are approx 10x higher from Covid than normal flu years)?

[MadManMike]

3 hours ago, Ali C said:

Hope you are recovered soon!

 

As a point of discussion, Peter McCullough says you can’t get Covid twice.

 

This has been something that seemed dubious to me as a lot of people have said they’ve had it twice including you.

 

In fairness, the first time I "had it" was before there was mass testing, so it's just an assumption that it was Covid. I still believe it was, because it was unlike anything I'd had before, with pretty bad shortness of breath but it was never officially confirmed.

Day four today and I basically just have a bad headache still, coughing up nasty stuff but mostly better now. It'll be a while before I get all my energy back, but recovery seems to be going well