Posted on 08/11/2021 12:10:00 PM PDT by Red Badger
A new preprint study that raises concerns about the mRNA vaccines' effectiveness against Delta — particularly Pfizer's — has already grabbed the attention of top Biden administration officials.
What they're saying: The study found the Pfizer vaccine was only 42% effective against infection in July, when the Delta variant was dominant. "If that's not a wakeup call, I don't know what is," a senior Biden official told Axios.
Driving the news: The study, conducted by nference and the Mayo Clinic, compared the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in the Mayo Clinic Health System over time from January to July.
*Overall, it found that the Moderna vaccine was 86% effective against infection over the study period, and Pfizer's was 76%.
*Moderna's vaccine was 92% effective against hospitalization and Pfizer's was 85%.
*But the vaccines' effectiveness against infection dropped sharply in July, when the Delta variant's prevalence in Minnesota had risen to over 70%.
*Moderna was 76% effective against infection, and Pfizer was only 42% effective.
*The study found similar results in other states. For example, in Florida, the risk of infection in July for people fully vaccinated with Moderna was about 60% lower than for people fully vaccinated with Pfizer.
Why it matters: Although it has yet to be peer-reviewed, the study raises serious questions about both vaccines' long-term effectiveness, particularly Pfizer's.
*It's unclear whether the results signify a reduction in effectiveness over time, a reduced effectiveness against Delta, or a combination of both.
*“Based on the data that we have so far, it is a combination of both factors," said Venky Soundararajan, a lead author of the study. "The Moderna vaccine is likely — very likely — more effective than the Pfizer vaccine in areas where Delta is the dominant strain, and the Pfizer vaccine appears to have a lower durability of effectiveness.”
*He added that his team is working on a follow-up study that will try to differentiate between the durability of the two vaccines and their effectiveness against Delta.
Yes, but: There has been no data so far that has found either vaccine's protection against severe disease and death is significantly less against Delta, and the study notes that there doesn't appear to be much of a difference in complications stemming from breakthrough infections based on which vaccine someone got.
*And experts cautioned against rushing to conclusions.
*“This is the kind of surprising finding that needs confirmation before we should accept its validity," said Cornell virologist John Moore.
Between the lines: The two shots both use mRNA, but there are significant differences between them.
*For example, Moderna is given in a stronger dose than Pfizer, and there is a slightly different time interval between shots.
*"There are a few differences between what are known to be similar vaccines .... None of these variables is an obvious smoking gun, although the dosing amount seems the most likely to be a factor," Moore said.
In a statement, Pfizer said it and BioNTech "expect to be able to develop and produce a tailor-made vaccine against that variant in approximately 100 days after a decision to do so, subject to regulatory approval."
Editor's note: This story has been updated to include a statement from Pfizer.
Now ye done it! The Rand Corp. “influencers” are all going to show up now.
Might as well get them all in the same place at the same time...........................
IIRC, very early on...before the numbers came in, Fauci said 50% was good enough.
Thanks for posting the info, but I hate axios and their “why it matters” gimmick. End of rant.
I know Axios is left-wing, but if they are now questioning the vaxxes, then something must be really screwed up.......................
Please read the above post
At the time, 50% seemed like a miracle.................
So where’s the vax for Delta?
Fauci patented this. He’s supposed to be able to crank ‘em out like tasty breads.
Unless he can’t, and Warp Speed was all a lie and he had his vax and the virus before he even met Trump…
Every time I have tried to research which one is best I have been met with some form of “They’re all great. Shut up and get the first one that is available.”
in a nutshell..if you are not vaccinated, your highest chance of getting the virus is contact with a vaccinated person.
It's why FauXi came right out and said the pandemic would be released during Trump's administration. It was a sure thing; A Plandemic.
It’s odd that they always leave out the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in many of these articles
BINGO! The virus AND the so called vaccine was made long before Trump took office. Trump had nothing to do with creating a vaccine. Warp Speed was done to force the "deep state" to release the already prepared vax. Had Trump not forced the issue, the lockdowns and mask requirements would have gone on endlessly.
“If IRC, very early on...before the numbers came in, Fauci said 50% was good enough.”
That was back when they tricked everybody into the 70% vaxed rate would be enough.
We now know they are demanding a 100% vaxed rate
Is it significant that these stories about vaccines never seem to mention the Johnson & Johnson vaccine?
Good point.
I didn’t know he said that.
But the only way that this narrow and frankly weak “vaccine” can work is if it can be adapted quickly to mutations as they appear. I think it’s one of the features that the technology is supposed to promise.
Supposedly, “Warp Speed” produced this Alpha vax in 9 months.
The clock is months running on Delta being the obvious addition.
J&J was late coming to market, so not much data...................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.