Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine just 42% effective against infection amid delta spread, preprint suggests

Fox News ^ | 8/12/21 | Kayla Rivas

[conservative98]

Early findings posted ahead of rigorous peer review suggested the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine declined to 42% effectiveness against infection amid sweeping spread of the delta variant, with the Moderna vaccine declining to 76%.

[sarge83]

But, but the follow the science crowd and vaccine proselytizers promised covid protection if we would only follow their science and take the jab. They neglected to tell us it was being jabbed in perpetuity.

I am hearing from lots of friends who are pissed at having been lied too about everything they were promised, do the right thing, take the vaccines, we’re all in this together, it will stop covid rah-rah, rah-rah, you are a great citizen and a joy-joy person to be around! I think the follow the science crowd better come up with some new BS to shovel because I am hearing no more shots, no way in hell with those liars.

[nitzy]

Looking at the guts of this study, if you took the Pfizer shot instead of remaining unvaccinated:

You reduced your risk of testing positive on a PCR test from 1.2% (321 out of 24990) to .3% (72 out of 22064)

You reduced your risk of going to the hospital from .33% (82 out of 25083) to .049% (11 out of 22085)

You reduced your risk of going to ICU from .067% (17 out of 25097) to .009% (2 out of 22090)

You reduced your risk of death from .015% (4 out of 25101) to 0.0%

If you were vaxxed and tested positive on a PCR test you had a 15% chance of going to the hospital, a 2.5% chance of going to the ICU and a 0% chance of dying.

If you were unvaxxed and tested positive on PCR test, you had a 25% change of going to the hospital, a 5% chance of going to the ICU and a 1.2% chance of dying.

This is just what is in the report. Who knows if the numbers were massaged.

[mass55th]

Hopefully more people in this country, and around the globe will come to the same realization as your friends. I have very few friends, by choice, and I rarely see them. In fact, I talk to them more on the phone than see them in person, and it was like that a long time prior to Covid showing up. The last member of my immediate family, a sister, died in 2015, so I didn’t have to deal with any of that. My two sons, ages 54 and 50, both got the shots. It was their choice, and although I still worry about possible future side effects they might experience, I won’t broach the topic with them. They think my reasons for not getting the experimental injections are weird, but I told them that my life experiences are totally different from theirs, and that I’ve made my decisions based on those experiences, and what I see as history repeating itself. It would be nice if they both eventually came to their senses, but I doubt I’ll be alive by then.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

76% effective in preventing hospitalization sounds pretty swell to me.

Well, that's probably because you don't understand math that well. Via the CDC:https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html

So, the chance of a person under 50 needing to be hospitalized from Covid: 0.36%
A 76% chance of avoiding hospitalization means your odds just went from 99.64 to 99.914%. So it made a tiny chance slightly more tiny.

At 65, you'd go from 99.12% to 99.79% Once again, tiny chance to a slightly smaller tiny chance. For someone at high risk, perhaps worth it. But as a selling point to the general population, not so much. Especially when you consider you chance of getting in a car accident is 1/366 for every 1000 miles driven (that's a 99.73% for safety for comparison). So you'd be better off to stop driving (since the average driver goes 13,500 miles per year, that gives you a safety rate of 96.3%).

But relative risk is... relative.

[Ancesthntr]

This simply means that they original claims of 95% or 96% effectiveness were either based on very small, hand-picked, test cohorts, or they were a damned lie from the git-go.

I’m going with Door #2, mainly because EVERYTHING that the government and the medical/pharmaceutical establishment has told us about Covid has been a giant f’ing lie from Day One.

Don’t believe these bastards about ANYTHING. You want to protect yourself from getting Covid (or any other virus, for that matter), then up your intake of vitamin D3, zinc, vitamin C, quercetin and NAC. Get more sleep. Get exercise. ALL of these things boost your immune system.

Read (and bookmark) this website to learn a lot and to have access to the right kind of drugs quickly if you develop symptoms: https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/

[grey_whiskers]

This is horrifying pic.twitter.com/lvU4PJKDnd— Barstool News Network (@BarstoolNewsN) April 28, 2021

I'll take "Things that didn't age well for $800, Alex"

...do they need booster ad campaigns every 6 months, too?

[semimojo]

Well, that's probably because you don't understand math...

That's funny coming from someone who doesn't know what effectiveness is.

People vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine have 76% fewer hospitalizations than the same number of the unvaccinated.

Pretty swell.

[House Atreides]

“ The other thing to remember about Pfizer is it was the first approved and required ultra-cold storage so it was the one deployed to the highest-risk settings and patients. Likely one reason it looks less efficacious than Moderna in a retrospective study like this.”
********************************************************************
That’s certainly a rational supposition. But if you look at the details of the design and execution of the study you’ll see that they selected their groups to be one-on-one closely matched with such characteristics. It’s a well thought out study that eliminates the weaknesses I’ve seen in other COVID-19 “studies” that were sometimes agenda-driven.

The study’s designers were very forward thinking and considered all possibilities. You didn’t consult for them, did you? ;-)

[David Chase]

This information is coming from Pfizer.

As early as December Pfizer has maintained at least 6 months of protection against the main strain of Covid-19.

They couldn’t go any father than 6 months because they didn’t have any data as trial went only so far.

Each Variant coming from another is usually more contagious but weaker than the first strain, in this case Covid-19.

The whole idea was in 6 months we would have better control and even be within here immunity by that time.

How ever, the vaccine is not getting out as quickly as thought and infection rate of Covid-19 is still moderate, keeping the Variants coming as the clock continues to tick up to 6 months.

Around Sept., I would and will re-evaluate where we are with these viruses and decide whether I should get a booster.

[semimojo]

The study’s designers were very forward thinking and considered all possibilities.

Scott Gottlieb says Pfizer doesn't think the researchers corrected adequately for the effects, but that's what peer review's for.

You didn’t consult for them, did you?

If I did they totally stiffed me on my bill.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Where do you think the statistics come from, if not the ratio of hospitalizations? You really don’t understand math at all...

[semimojo]

Where do you think the statistics come from, if not the ratio of hospitalizations?

Right, the ratio of hospitalizations among vaccinated relative to the unvaccinated.

The effectiveness of a vaccine has nothing to do with the absolute risk of contracting the disease, which is what you were going on about.

The vaccine is 76% effective in preventing hospitalizations which is, indeed, swell.

Now you can make the argument, as you seem to be doing, that a disease that's killed over 600k Americans isn't dangerous enough to warrant getting vaccinated, but that says nothing about vaccine effectiveness.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

No, it’s not “76% effective in preventing hospitalizations,” because that statistic is meaningless. It requires you to know who would have been hospitalized due to Covid, but wasn’t, because of the vaccine. So that number is meaningless without the context of how it was determined. The real statement is “people who were hospitalized made up a smaller percentage of hospitalized patients, and the ratio of hospitalizations per covid cases is 76% less among the vaccinated than among the unvaccinated.” That is reflected in the numbers I stated above.

Your dismissal of those numbers means that either you don’t understand what they mean (in which case your opinion on this is worthless), or that you are intentionally attempting to ignore the statistics because you don’t like the conclusions that might be drawn from them (which also means your opinion here can safely be ignored). Either way, your innumeracy indicts your advocacy to any impartial readers of this thread.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Now you can make the argument, as you seem to be doing, that a disease that's killed over 600k Americans isn't dangerous enough to warrant getting vaccinated, but that says nothing about vaccine effectiveness.

Straw man. I've never stated that in this thread (and I defy you to show where I did). What I stated was that the stated effect of the vaccines, as listed in the study, shows that they provide a very small decrease in an already very small chance of being hospitalized. I mentioned death, personal evaluations of risk, or the need to be vaccinated exactly nowhere. Why are you so insecure that you need to argue things that I never asserted?

[semimojo]

The real statement is “people who were hospitalized made up a smaller percentage of hospitalized patients, and the ratio of hospitalizations per covid cases is 76% less among the vaccinated than among the unvaccinated.”

Assuming you mean people who were vaccinated, not hospitalized, the statement is pretty close to what I tried to say.

In two cohorts of people, one vaccinated and the other not, but otherwise comparable, the vaccinated are 76% less likely to be hospitalized.

Your dismissal of those numbers...

I didn't dismiss anything. I'm just pointing out your bringing up absolute risk is a red herring as it relates to vaccine effectiveness, which was the topic.

76% effectiveness in preventing hospitalizations is pretty swell.

[cpforlife.org]

poinq,
Could you please explain how Ivermectin works on covid? Does it also not stop viral replication till covid gets to the blood stream?

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ is saying that Ivermectin is an excellent treatment, but also could/should be used prophylactically for high risk people.

Wondering if you have thoughts on that?

[poinq]

It does seem to work both at reducing the sickness of those who are sick even at late stages. And it works for some people as a prophylactic. It seems to mess with the virus.

This guy explains how it seams to work...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZoBAuR4ajs

There are others who explain how studies have suggested it does work quite well. And many very large countries are using it, like most of South America, India and many other countries.