Pfizer, BioNTech say Covid vaccine is more than 90% effective—‘great day for science and humanity’

CNBC ^ | NOV 9 2020 | Sam Meredith

[Anti-Bubba182]

Pfizer and BioNTech announced Monday their coronavirus vaccine was more than 90% effective in preventing Covid-19 among those without evidence of prior infection, hailing the development as “a great day for science and humanity.”......"

[ETCM]

Except Pfizer didn't participate in Warp Speed.

They did participate, and accepted almost $2B, agreeing to supply 300M doses, plus 300M more if needed. Without the $2B upfront promise, plus a fast tracked EUA from the FDA, this would not have happened so fast. That was the whole point of Operation Warp Speed.

NEW YORK & MAINZ, Germany--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) today announced the execution of an agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense to meet the U.S. government’s Operation Warp Speed program goal to begin delivering 300 million doses of a vaccine for COVID-19 in 2021. Under the agreement, the U.S. government will receive 100 million doses of BNT162, the COVID-19 vaccine candidate jointly developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, after Pfizer successfully manufactures and obtains approval or emergency use authorization from U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Source: Pfizer

PFIZER AND BIONTECH ANNOUNCE AN AGREEMENT WITH U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR UP TO 600 MILLION DOSES OF MRNA-BASED VACCINE CANDIDATE AGAINST SARS-COV-2

[frank ballenger]

Just a coincidence the FDA held this information until after the election....

I feel like....

Screaming

Heard that CNN and others took off the streaming updated terror lines of how many are dying of Covid from the corners of TV news. Didn't see it myself. See? All gone. Everything's okay again now that Biden will cure Covid./s

What's next, Barr and Durham were too shy to talk about it before but now have evidence of Hunter & Joe felonies. Welcome President Elect Kamala Harris. And VP Bernie (or Hillary).

[ETCM]

See post 81 above. She is twisting words. They signed an agreement for $2B under OWS.

PFIZER AND BIONTECH ANNOUNCE AN AGREEMENT WITH U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR UP TO 600 MILLION DOSES OF MRNA-BASED VACCINE CANDIDATE AGAINST SARS-COV-2

[ridesthemiles]

Watch Biden take all the credit.....

[ridesthemiles]

Watch Biden take all the credit.....

[ridesthemiles]

While Biden openly tells us there will be MORE LOCKDOWNS.

[semimojo]

They did participate, and accepted almost $2B, agreeing to supply 300M doses, plus 300M more if needed.

The government money was only assuming the vaccine they developed, 100% with their own money, was effective and worth purchasing.

I agree the government plays a huge role in all this but Pfizer developed it with their own money.

[ETCM]

That’s pretty much how it worked for all of the OWS participants.

https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-speed/index.html

[napscoordinator]

I doubt there will be. Remember that America is going to miraculously have zero problems.

[Shethink13]

Effective” in this context means the vaccine invokes neutralizing antibodies and T-cell responses to the preferred targets on SARS Co V 2.

I have not heard of T-cell response only neutralizing antibodies after the booster. Do you have a link to that information?

[Shethink13]

The flu vaccine is 40-60% effective depending on the year.

What are the parameters used to judge effectiveness. In other words, what is the definition of “effective” in this circumstance?

[444Flyer]

To small to fail.

“Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/covid-19-vaccine-protocols-reveal-that-trials-are-designed-to-succeed/?sh=707fb7bd5247

[444Flyer]

To=Too

[2aProtectsTheRest]

Prevents contracting the disease would be the common meaning there.

Also, specifically for the flu vaccine, even in cases where the vaccinated person still contracted the flu, there is a huge drop in the risk of having a severe case requiring medical attention: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2017-2018/vaccine-reduces-risk-severe-illness.htm

So if you get the flu vaccine, there’s a 40-60% chance (depending on the year) that you won’t get the flu at all, and if you do get the flu, there’s a 37% lower chance you’ll wind up in the hospital and an 82% lower chance you’ll wind up in the ICU.

Not bad for a free 5-minute shot at Walgreens!

[Shethink13]

So if you get the flu vaccine, there’s a 40-60% chance (depending on the year) that you won’t get the flu at all, and if you do get the flu, there’s a 37% lower chance you’ll wind up in the hospital and an 82% lower chance you’ll wind up in the ICU.

And what’s the chance that you’ll get the flu or end up in the hospital if you don’t get the vaccine?

And where do the cases come from that are included in the effectiveness studies? Where does the data come from?

[Shethink13]

So if you get the flu vaccine, there’s a 40-60% chance (depending on the year) that you won’t get the flu at all, and if you do get the flu, there’s a 37% lower chance you’ll wind up in the hospital and an 82% lower chance you’ll wind up in the ICU.

Lower chance than what? What is the other side of this equation? Lower than if you don’t get the vaccine?

[2aProtectsTheRest]

I’ve provided the links (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2017-2018/vaccine-reduces-risk-severe-illness.htm). There’s nothing I can do if you want to ignore the information presented in the studies.

If you think the studies are wrong, feel free to conduct your own studies and see what results you get.

[Shethink13]

There’s nothing I can do if you want to ignore the information presented in the studies.

I read the study you cited and I am not ignoring any information. I am wondering where you came up with the information that is NOT included in those studies.

For instance when I asked how you define “effective” you said the following:

Prevents contracting the disease would be the common meaning there.

But from the link you just provided, I see NO CLAIM of disease prevention, only less severe symptoms. So I repeat my question - less severe than what? Less severe than if unvaccinated?

[2aProtectsTheRest]

"For instance when I asked how you define “effective”"

"flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population" - CDC

"less severe than what? Less severe than if unvaccinated?"

"getting a flu shot lessened the risk of severe influenza (flu) among adults, including reducing the risk of hospitalization and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and also lessened the severity of illness." - CDC

"flu vaccination reduced the severity of illness among hospitalized people who were vaccinated compared to those who were unvaccinated" - CDC

It's right there in the links I already provided.

[Shethink13]

It's right there in the links I already provided.

I read every source you sent. I see zero data for rate of infection for unvaccinated as compared to vaccinated. If you have that data it would helpful to either provide a link directly to that data or copy and paste and provide the source. If you would be so kind.