Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »@kimny72 and others following vaccine research closely - how do they get that 90%? Are they exposing the test subjects? That seems unethical, but if they are not, how would they know the subjects didn't get Covid because they simply were not exposed to it?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/
...The companies said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic Covid-19 than those who received a placebo.
Once there are enough numbers, they decide it's an effect, not random chance. Statistics. (It's too long since I did any advanced stats, so I'm literally incapable of explaining the details, but it's a standard protocol.)
I don't know enough about this study to know the control/treated matching protocols (how detailed), but the answer is still statistics.
There are some challenge studies (where people are intentionally exposed) but I don't personally know whether Pfizer did any. It's not unethical to expose test subjects who sign up for the study with full knowledge (informed consent) that they are going to be intentionally exposed to the disease. Volunteers are solicited, and brave, generous people sign up for it, in the hope of speeding vaccine availability . . . if the vaccine they're helping test pans out.
I don't think this you meant to imply the volunteers' effort isn't worth it if the vaccine they're helping test doesn't pan out, but just want to clarify that even if that particular vaccine doesn't pan out, the courage and generosity of volunteers still helps to speed vaccine availability, because researchers and testing infrastructure can be reallocated to a new vaccine candidate more quickly than would be possible if testing had to wait for sufficient data under non-challenge conditions == assuming the choice is between a challenge test and a test in a population without significant community spread.
Right now I would think there are plenty of spots in the U.S. and some other parts of the world with enough community spread not to have to do a challenge test, but I guess one of the problems is that community prevalence bounces up and down with the adoption and abandonment of masking and distancing and capacity practices, maybe it's hard to pick a place to recruit test participants.3 -
So I'm a veteran (but please don't thank me for my service.) Every year I look forward to seeing the list of freebies that businesses are offering and usually get a free meal somewhere. Where I currently live, there are hardly any national chain restaurants near me, but the ones that are are only offering the discount for dine-in only. WTF? I've always gotten take out in the past. I haven't eaten in a restaurant for 10 months and have no intention of eating in one any time soon.
Even Dunkin Donuts says "in store only." I'm sure if I went to the drive through they'd give me my free donut but I find the insistence on making me come inside the store from every place I've checked very disconcerting. (I'm also sure local chains would let me get takeout but there aren't many close enough to bother and now I'm annoyed.)
https://news.dunkindonuts.com/news/veterans-day-2020
https://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/80347/veterans-day-2020-discounts/18 -
kshama2001 wrote: »@kimny72 and others following vaccine research closely - how do they get that 90%? Are they exposing the test subjects? That seems unethical, but if they are not, how would they know the subjects didn't get Covid because they simply were not exposed to it?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/
...The companies said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic Covid-19 than those who received a placebo.
The last podcast I listened to dropped before the Pfizer news so I'm anxious to hear what they have to say about it. But I'd suspect there's some tried and true statistical extrapolation going on to arrive at that 90% figure. I think the most important thing though is they are starting to see proof that they understand the virus and are able to target it effectively, both with medications and now with vaccines.
A downside of the Pfizer vaccine is it must be kept significantly cold, which will be a shipping challenge and might limit vaccination locations. But it's a proof of concept that suggests all the other vaccines are most likely on the right track as well and we might end up with several good vaccines by next summer making it easier to get more people some kind of protection.4 -
kshama2001 wrote: »So I'm a veteran (but please don't thank me for my service.) Every year I look forward to seeing the list of freebies that businesses are offering and usually get a free meal somewhere. Where I currently live, there are hardly any national chain restaurants near me, but the ones that are are only offering the discount for dine-in only. WTF? I've always gotten take out in the past. I haven't eaten in a restaurant for 10 months and have no intention of eating in one any time soon.
Even Dunkin Donuts says "in store only." I'm sure if I went to the drive through they'd give me my free donut but I find the insistence on making me come inside the store from every place I've checked very disconcerting. (I'm also sure local chains would let me get takeout but there aren't many close enough to bother and now I'm annoyed.)
https://news.dunkindonuts.com/news/veterans-day-2020
https://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/80347/veterans-day-2020-discounts/
That does seem crazy, especially for Dunkin' Donuts -- last time I was in there, just a couple of weeks ago, they still weren't letting you sit inside.
But I wonder if the "in-store" proviso should be read with the following sentence about it not being available on the app. I can imagine the part of the company responsible for the Veterans Day offer not realizing in time that mobile app use has escalated during the past year, and nobody has put a free-donut feature into the app -- or even that they don't want to, since mobile orders are often picked up by delivery people, or a third-party (not the veteran).
5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »@kimny72 and others following vaccine research closely - how do they get that 90%? Are they exposing the test subjects? That seems unethical, but if they are not, how would they know the subjects didn't get Covid because they simply were not exposed to it?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/
...The companies said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic Covid-19 than those who received a placebo.
Once there are enough numbers, they decide it's an effect, not random chance. Statistics. (It's too long since I did any advanced stats, so I'm literally incapable of explaining the details, but it's a standard protocol.)
I don't know enough about this study to know the control/treated matching protocols (how detailed), but the answer is still statistics.
There are some challenge studies (where people are intentionally exposed) but I don't personally know whether Pfizer did any. It's not unethical to expose test subjects who sign up for the study with full knowledge (informed consent) that they are going to be intentionally exposed to the disease. Volunteers are solicited, and brave, generous people sign up for it, in the hope of speeding vaccine availability . . . if the vaccine they're helping test pans out.
I don't think this you meant to imply the volunteers' effort isn't worth it if the vaccine they're helping test doesn't pan out, but just want to clarify that even if that particular vaccine doesn't pan out, the courage and generosity of volunteers still helps to speed vaccine availability, because researchers and testing infrastructure can be reallocated to a new vaccine candidate more quickly than would be possible if testing had to wait for sufficient data under non-challenge conditions == assuming the choice is between a challenge test and a test in a population without significant community spread.
Right now I would think there are plenty of spots in the U.S. and some other parts of the world with enough community spread not to have to do a challenge test, but I guess one of the problems is that community prevalence bounces up and down with the adoption and abandonment of masking and distancing and capacity practices, maybe it's hard to pick a place to recruit test participants.
Yes, poorly written. I meant that the volunteers sign up in the hope of speeding availability (i.e., they put themselves at higher risk, via intentional exposure, in the hope that a challenge test will produce faster results than a normal community-spread test (administer vaccine, tell everyone to play it safe with exposure, and see who gets Covid anyway). They do speed overall progress even if their particular trial vaccine doesn't work, but I expect their hope is that it *will* work and speed delivery of that specific working vaccine to the rest of the population.
Thanks for clarifying my thought.4 -
Even if a vaccine is available for most of us soonish and there's enough for everyone (unlikely) there's no way to know how long it will last is there? Maybe i'm missing something but the long term viability and long term effects are unable to be determined since it's hardly been long enough to really get any data.
Seeing as the flu is constantly mutating and we have to vaccinate against it yearly i'm not holding my breath that any vaccine will have lasting, long term viability and I don't think we should hang our hats on it.
I do think we should open up/stay open - those who are high risk should isolate, people should wear masks (though i'm not convinced that they really work as advertised, it's an easy enough thing to do), and general precautions but we have to get back to living. This isn't sustainable from a mental health or an economic standpoint.
We need to get flu vaccine every year because there are different flu viruses out there every year, and full immunity to all of them isn't permanent.
It is quite possible that a covid-19 vaccine will be annual along with the flu shot, or might be one you need to get a booster every so often. That could make eliminating the virus difficult if people won't participate. But this country has managed to eradicate or make very rare all kinds of ugly viruses that used to just be a tragic fact of life, so I can't imagine why we can't do it with this one.
If we'd handled this better, it wouldn't have been a continuous struggle. We could've had everyone masked, and only keep closed businesses that can't accommodate distancing, and the govt could've provided relief to those businesses. Lots of places in this country ARE open, and their hospitals are being over run. I see other countries where they were able to open up quite a bit, and only needed temp shut downs usually because people got complacent.
Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of people dying, thousands more going into medical debt after recovering, and the large % of the US population who would be high risk trying to isolate themselves would also tank the economy. IMHO the only way to recover the economy at this point is to defeat the virus. It's not only elderly people who get very sick or die (not that I think that's not a tragedy too), we've lost over 1300 US health care workers to this thing already, and as the numbers climb again, that is tragically sure to continue. Not to mention all the essential workers who have been sacrificed to this. I doubt just giving up and lifting restrictions would be the economic jolt some think it will.9 -
baconslave wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »Pfizer just announced that their vaccine is testing at 90% effective. That would be fantastic.
Also, BTW, Pfizer did not partake in Operation Warp Speed because they didn't want to obligate themselves to what taking public funds would mean. They did this pretty much on their own without help. Just in case you hear certain parties/people taking claim that "they alone" solved Coronavirus, that would be 100% false.
In addition they will do the distribution themselves because they have suppliers already lined-up. They know how to do it, and I think that they don't trust the ability of the government to keep the vaccine as such low temperatures as it is needed.
Word of caution: Pfizer just run what is called an interim efficacy analysis. They are still continuing with the study since not all participants have completed the second shot and the f/up vigilance phase. The company still needs to do the interim safety analysis (due toward the end of November), before they can apply for an FDA expedite approval. If everything is good.
We got good news from the company but please people don't count your chickens until all the eggs have hatched. Disappointments are hard to swallow.
Right.
And it's very important to remember that they are saying they'll have enough vaccine for only 25 million people. The CDC has said that health care workers are first in line. Then the elderly. "Widespread" vaccine availability for everyone won't be until next year. Masking and distancing will remain our reality for the rest of this year and most of next. Even then everyone won't get the vaccine at once, many require 2 doses, and coverage of the populace won't be 100% b/c sadly many won't take any vaccine no matter what.
We should all go forward knowing this will be over, but we still have quite a way to go. That's what is.
Regardless of vaccine status, we are locked into this path right now crafted by consequences we've courted for 8 months. There will be suffering. Even if everyone started following guidelines right this moment, we would still have a rough month and a half ahead. A vaccine isn't a point-n-click solution either. And I hold out zero hopes that we'll get much better mask/distancing compliance at this point.
There is a light!!! But the tunnel is still long.
Sorry to be a downer, but like Mike said, we've had enough disappointment. Let's be real and not hurt ourselves more than the wounds we're already accruing here. I do hope at some point soon the leadership of this country, whomever that ends up being, will have this talk with the American people. IMO, we'd do better to frame this as a "war time" effort.
I think it's such a shame it wasn't framed as a "war on the virus" right from the beginning! Wrap the effort in the flag, appeal to everyone's patriotism. I think it would have been such a different trajectory. I doubt a new point of view in the new year can completely fix how people see the pandemic, but hopefully it will help.
And yeah, we all have to brace ourselves for the next 2 or 3 months 9 -
Even if a vaccine is available for most of us soonish and there's enough for everyone (unlikely) there's no way to know how long it will last is there? Maybe i'm missing something but the long term viability and long term effects are unable to be determined since it's hardly been long enough to really get any data.
Seeing as the flu is constantly mutating and we have to vaccinate against it yearly i'm not holding my breath that any vaccine will have lasting, long term viability and I don't think we should hang our hats on it.
I do think we should open up/stay open - those who are high risk should isolate, people should wear masks (though i'm not convinced that they really work as advertised, it's an easy enough thing to do), and general precautions but we have to get back to living. This isn't sustainable from a mental health or an economic standpoint.
We need to get flu vaccine every year because there are different flu viruses out there every year, and full immunity to all of them isn't permanent.
It is quite possible that a covid-19 vaccine will be annual along with the flu shot, or might be one you need to get a booster every so often. That could make eliminating the virus difficult if people won't participate. But this country has managed to eradicate or make very rare all kinds of ugly viruses that used to just be a tragic fact of life, so I can't imagine why we can't do it with this one.
If we'd handled this better, it wouldn't have been a continuous struggle. We could've had everyone masked, and only keep closed businesses that can't accommodate distancing, and the govt could've provided relief to those businesses. Lots of places in this country ARE open, and their hospitals are being over run. I see other countries where they were able to open up quite a bit, and only needed temp shut downs usually because people got complacent.
Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of people dying, thousands more going into medical debt after recovering, and the large % of the US population who would be high risk trying to isolate themselves would also tank the economy. IMHO the only way to recover the economy at this point is to defeat the virus. It's not only elderly people who get very sick or die (not that I think that's not a tragedy too), we've lost over 1300 US health care workers to this thing already, and as the numbers climb again, that is tragically sure to continue. Not to mention all the essential workers who have been sacrificed to this. I doubt just giving up and lifting restrictions would be the economic jolt some think it will.
My comment is that here, in Europe, things are very bad again. I'm in Italy and just frustrated. We did Lockdown last spring, masking, and the government was behind everything---and still, we've got hospitals overwhelmed, the death rate rising, cases skyrocketing, the economy tanked, and now another Lockdown in sight. Unless you can keep up stringent measures constantly and for a long time, you'll lose anyway. It's just depressing. In a large country, it's hard to defeat this. It doesn't seem to matter what you do. I know a handfull of countries have managed, but they're constantly trying to stamp out any new infection that sneaks in. I just don't think it's possible world-wide. Sigh.9 -
kshama2001 wrote: »So I'm a veteran (but please don't thank me for my service.) Every year I look forward to seeing the list of freebies that businesses are offering and usually get a free meal somewhere. Where I currently live, there are hardly any national chain restaurants near me, but the ones that are are only offering the discount for dine-in only. WTF? I've always gotten take out in the past. I haven't eaten in a restaurant for 10 months and have no intention of eating in one any time soon.
Even Dunkin Donuts says "in store only." I'm sure if I went to the drive through they'd give me my free donut but I find the insistence on making me come inside the store from every place I've checked very disconcerting. (I'm also sure local chains would let me get takeout but there aren't many close enough to bother and now I'm annoyed.)
https://news.dunkindonuts.com/news/veterans-day-2020
https://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/80347/veterans-day-2020-discounts/
If they really are in-restaurant only and aren't just wording it badly, how ridiculous. You should try the takeout just to see what they say (plus isn't DD a MA staple?). Sorry, couldn't resist!
I'm with you that I'm not going in a restaurant any time soon, although I've tried to use takeout to support local places, and been buying a lot with pickup from my neighborhood stores (most are currently open but limited the # of people allowed within). I recently did a pickup order from a spice place and the number within were below the posted (small) limit, but the whole area (the shopping/social area of Lincoln Square) was lots of youngish adults and their kids being maskless and drinking coffee and hanging out in close proximity to each other and with zero concern about distancing from anyone else, so I think the being outside is totally fine thing might be being abused in urban areas. I'm sympathetic to the view that getting back to normal is important, and the weather here has been unseasonally great for a while until tonight, but currently cases are exploding here.4 -
kshama2001 wrote: »So I'm a veteran (but please don't thank me for my service.) Every year I look forward to seeing the list of freebies that businesses are offering and usually get a free meal somewhere. Where I currently live, there are hardly any national chain restaurants near me, but the ones that are are only offering the discount for dine-in only. WTF? I've always gotten take out in the past. I haven't eaten in a restaurant for 10 months and have no intention of eating in one any time soon.
Even Dunkin Donuts says "in store only." I'm sure if I went to the drive through they'd give me my free donut but I find the insistence on making me come inside the store from every place I've checked very disconcerting. (I'm also sure local chains would let me get takeout but there aren't many close enough to bother and now I'm annoyed.)
https://news.dunkindonuts.com/news/veterans-day-2020
https://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/80347/veterans-day-2020-discounts/
If they really are in-restaurant only and aren't just wording it badly, how ridiculous. You should try the takeout just to see what they say (plus isn't DD a MA staple?). Sorry, couldn't resist!
I'm with you that I'm not going in a restaurant any time soon, although I've tried to use takeout to support local places, and been buying a lot with pickup from my neighborhood stores (most are currently open but limited the # of people allowed within). I recently did a pickup order from a spice place and the number within were below the posted (small) limit, but the whole area (the shopping/social area of Lincoln Square) was lots of youngish adults and their kids being maskless and drinking coffee and hanging out in close proximity to each other and with zero concern about distancing from anyone else, so I think the being outside is totally fine thing might be being abused in urban areas. I'm sympathetic to the view that getting back to normal is important, and the weather here has been unseasonally great for a while until tonight, but currently cases are exploding here.
Yes that does not make sense! I would call the restaurants and ask. I think they likely say that because they need you to come in to verify you are a vetran or else everyone would be ordering free food for pickup pretending they are a vetran.6 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »baconslave wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »baconslave wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »Pfizer just announced that their vaccine is testing at 90% effective. That would be fantastic.
Also, BTW, Pfizer did not partake in Operation Warp Speed because they didn't want to obligate themselves to what taking public funds would mean. They did this pretty much on their own without help. Just in case you hear certain parties/people taking claim that "they alone" solved Coronavirus, that would be 100% false.
In addition they will do the distribution themselves because they have suppliers already lined-up. They know how to do it, and I think that they don't trust the ability of the government to keep the vaccine as such low temperatures as it is needed.
Word of caution: Pfizer just run what is called an interim efficacy analysis. They are still continuing with the study since not all participants have completed the second shot and the f/up vigilance phase. The company still needs to do the interim safety analysis (due toward the end of November), before they can apply for an FDA expedite approval. If everything is good.
We got good news from the company but please people don't count your chickens until all the eggs have hatched. Disappointments are hard to swallow.
Right.
And it's very important to remember that they are saying they'll have enough vaccine for only 25 million people. The CDC has said that health care workers are first in line. Then the elderly. "Widespread" vaccine availability for everyone won't be until next year. Masking and distancing will remain our reality for the rest of this year and most of next. Even then everyone won't get the vaccine at once, many require 2 doses, and coverage of the populace won't be 100% b/c sadly many won't take any vaccine no matter what.
We should all go forward knowing this will be over, but we still have quite a way to go. That's what is.
Regardless of vaccine status, we are locked into this path right now crafted by consequences we've courted for 8 months. There will be suffering. Even if everyone started following guidelines right this moment, we would still have a rough month and a half ahead. A vaccine isn't a point-n-click solution either. And I hold out zero hopes that we'll get much better mask/distancing compliance at this point.
There is a light!!! But the tunnel is still long.
Sorry to be a downer, but like Mike said, we've had enough disappointment. Let's be real and not hurt ourselves more than the wounds we're already accruing here. I do hope at some point soon the leadership of this country, whomever that ends up being, will have this talk with the American people. IMO, we'd do better to frame this as a "war time" effort.
The U.S. government is buying 100 million vaccines, not 25 million. Yes, healthcare workers get priority. We expected that as it was discussed months ago. Still, 100 million should be enough for healthcare workers plus some for people at higher risk. We need more for the rest of the country yet, but don't know how many more. I know some people won't take it and others won't need it because of a recent infection. At $1,950 per vaccine (this is what the federal government will pay Pfizer... they will be free for actual recipients), let's hope for a price discount on the 2nd order.
Place where I used to live in IA is a small town with a prison. Last week's numbers showed 365 new infections at the prison... the capacity is 1,000 and I have heard they are at about 900 now, so 365 cases means about 40% got sick just on the same week. I anticipate the other 60% will be reported in the next 2 weeks. While some may not care about inmates, these are people also. They have families and friends, and some of them also have underlying health conditions to consider. I sure hope they give them masks, but am not convinced of that with how fast it has spread there.
They may be buying 100 mil, but it will only be available for 25 million people (50 million doses, 2 each required per person) this year.
"Pfizer has estimated it could have 50 million doses available globally by the end of 2020, enough for 25 million people." https://apnews.com/article/pfizer-vaccine-effective-early-data-4f4ae2e3bad122d17742be22a2240ae8
That's by the end of 2020 and those 50 million doses are for the entire world. The reporting on the U.S. 100 million doses doesn't have a date attached.
From the article you linked:But in July, Pfizer signed a contract to supply the U.S. with 100 million doses for $1.95 billion, assuming the vaccine is cleared by the FDA.
But I suppose if it takes 2 doses per person, then only 50 million Americans will get it unless another order is placed. And cost is nearly $4K per patient. Either way, we are looking at several months before this becomes available to most of us.
Right??? I'm having issues with being able to get my high risk flu shot(being over 65). I cannot imagine how this will all go down.
3 -
Argh, dh is home from work today because of a headache and chills. Please do NOT be anything else but a common virus.
They've had a couple positive cases where he works but he said he pretty much stays away from people(curmudgeonry has its benefits
). The positive cases were last on campus Oct. 22 and 28. But cases have ramped up everywhere, even in our rinkydinky little town. 16 -
That’s what I was thinking - verification purposes because people would take advantage of it...Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »So I'm a veteran (but please don't thank me for my service.) Every year I look forward to seeing the list of freebies that businesses are offering and usually get a free meal somewhere. Where I currently live, there are hardly any national chain restaurants near me, but the ones that are are only offering the discount for dine-in only. WTF? I've always gotten take out in the past. I haven't eaten in a restaurant for 10 months and have no intention of eating in one any time soon.
Even Dunkin Donuts says "in store only." I'm sure if I went to the drive through they'd give me my free donut but I find the insistence on making me come inside the store from every place I've checked very disconcerting. (I'm also sure local chains would let me get takeout but there aren't many close enough to bother and now I'm annoyed.)
https://news.dunkindonuts.com/news/veterans-day-2020
https://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/80347/veterans-day-2020-discounts/
If they really are in-restaurant only and aren't just wording it badly, how ridiculous. You should try the takeout just to see what they say (plus isn't DD a MA staple?). Sorry, couldn't resist!
I'm with you that I'm not going in a restaurant any time soon, although I've tried to use takeout to support local places, and been buying a lot with pickup from my neighborhood stores (most are currently open but limited the # of people allowed within). I recently did a pickup order from a spice place and the number within were below the posted (small) limit, but the whole area (the shopping/social area of Lincoln Square) was lots of youngish adults and their kids being maskless and drinking coffee and hanging out in close proximity to each other and with zero concern about distancing from anyone else, so I think the being outside is totally fine thing might be being abused in urban areas. I'm sympathetic to the view that getting back to normal is important, and the weather here has been unseasonally great for a while until tonight, but currently cases are exploding here.
Yes that does not make sense! I would call the restaurants and ask. I think they likely say that because they need you to come in to verify you are a vetran or else everyone would be ordering free food for pickup pretending they are a vetran.3 -
@ReenieHJ -- I hope your husband is OK.
We should start talking more about IF you get it. I'm reading about oxygen sensors being used and the level at which you should go to the hospital.
https://www.consumerreports.org/medical-symptoms/covid-19-pulse-oximeters-oxygen-levels-faq/
Amazon has sensors as low as $17. Any other insight from people that know more than I do about science?0 -
@MikePfirrman Thank you. He's acting fine(knock on wood and crossing my fingers) and is awaiting a call back for a test. He has a low-grade fever and chills but seems to feel alright. It's hard to tell when he's truly got something ailing him because he's the type that when he has a cold or bug he always calls it the flu. A case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, KWIM?
But thermometers don't lie and in this case, much better to be safe than sorry. Besides, I'd be terribly worried about the outcome if he did contract it because he has many pre-existing conditions that could theoretically make it harder for him. 10 -
kshama2001 wrote: »@kimny72 and others following vaccine research closely - how do they get that 90%? Are they exposing the test subjects? That seems unethical, but if they are not, how would they know the subjects didn't get Covid because they simply were not exposed to it?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/
...The companies said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic Covid-19 than those who received a placebo.
Once there are enough numbers, they decide it's an effect, not random chance. Statistics. (It's too long since I did any advanced stats, so I'm literally incapable of explaining the details, but it's a standard protocol.)
I don't know enough about this study to know the control/treated matching protocols (how detailed), but the answer is still statistics.
There are some challenge studies (where people are intentionally exposed) but I don't personally know whether Pfizer did any. It's not unethical to expose test subjects who sign up for the study with full knowledge (informed consent) that they are going to be intentionally exposed to the disease. Volunteers are solicited, and brave, generous people sign up for it, in the hope of speeding vaccine availability . . . if the vaccine they're helping test pans out.The_Enginerd wrote: »From the information I've read, an independent assessor checks progress at a set number of cases in the group. From there, they can compare the number of cases in those individuals given the placebo vs. the vaccine. It seems they are actually reaching the goals earlier than expected because the spread of the coronavirus has been so widespread, and they are already over halfway through the 164 total cases targeted for final review.
Sources:
https://www.vox.com/21556380/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-optimism-skepticism
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/11/09/vaccine-efficacy-data
Hmm, well 100% of the people I know IRL in Massachusetts who practice scrupulous mask wearing, hand washing, and social distancing have no symptoms of the virus, so if the volunteers are doing the same, how do we know the 90% vaccine effective rate has anything to do with the vaccine?
While it is statistically unlikely that the vaccine group is better at taking precautions than the placebo group, it seems to be a stretch to award all 90% to the vaccine if the subjects were also taking precautions.
The Vox article and another link within it do caution that the announcement comes from a press release, not validated data, so I will reserve judgement until more is known.3 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »@ReenieHJ -- I hope your husband is OK.
We should start talking more about IF you get it. I'm reading about oxygen sensors being used and the level at which you should go to the hospital.
https://www.consumerreports.org/medical-symptoms/covid-19-pulse-oximeters-oxygen-levels-faq/
Amazon has sensors as low as $17. Any other insight from people that know more than I do about science?
I know on the Navajo reservation, they are crediting oxygen sensors for significantly brining down the mortality rate as they had doctors going door to door checking on sick people and sending them to the hospital when they dipped below a certain level when otherwise they would have been more likely to try to ride it out at home.
I believe that is what ultimately triggered the POTUS going to the hospital.6 -
Yes, DD's are on every busy street here in MAkshama2001 wrote: »So I'm a veteran (but please don't thank me for my service.) Every year I look forward to seeing the list of freebies that businesses are offering and usually get a free meal somewhere. Where I currently live, there are hardly any national chain restaurants near me, but the ones that are are only offering the discount for dine-in only. WTF? I've always gotten take out in the past. I haven't eaten in a restaurant for 10 months and have no intention of eating in one any time soon.
Even Dunkin Donuts says "in store only." I'm sure if I went to the drive through they'd give me my free donut but I find the insistence on making me come inside the store from every place I've checked very disconcerting. (I'm also sure local chains would let me get takeout but there aren't many close enough to bother and now I'm annoyed.)
https://news.dunkindonuts.com/news/veterans-day-2020
https://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/80347/veterans-day-2020-discounts/
If they really are in-restaurant only and aren't just wording it badly, how ridiculous. You should try the takeout just to see what they say (plus isn't DD a MA staple?). Sorry, couldn't resist!
I'm with you that I'm not going in a restaurant any time soon, although I've tried to use takeout to support local places, and been buying a lot with pickup from my neighborhood stores (most are currently open but limited the # of people allowed within). I recently did a pickup order from a spice place and the number within were below the posted (small) limit, but the whole area (the shopping/social area of Lincoln Square) was lots of youngish adults and their kids being maskless and drinking coffee and hanging out in close proximity to each other and with zero concern about distancing from anyone else, so I think the being outside is totally fine thing might be being abused in urban areas. I'm sympathetic to the view that getting back to normal is important, and the weather here has been unseasonally great for a while until tonight, but currently cases are exploding here. My OH brought my Veterans ID and got my free donut via the drive-through.
To me there is no other possible interpretation of "dine-in only." I'd be fine with "Veterans ID or DD Form 214 must be shown when paying."Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Yes that does not make sense! I would call the restaurants and ask. I think they likely say that because they need you to come in to verify you are a vetran or else everyone would be ordering free food for pickup pretending they are a vetran.
It's possible the terms have always said "dine-in only" and restaurants never bothered to enforce it and I never noticed it, and this year they did not think to update it.
If I could find a restaurant near me I'd call to clarify, but there is a surprising lack of participating national chains within a reasonable distance from me.
Thanks all who responded - I was feeling cranky about this last night but am over it now 7 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »@ReenieHJ -- I hope your husband is OK.
We should start talking more about IF you get it. I'm reading about oxygen sensors being used and the level at which you should go to the hospital.
https://www.consumerreports.org/medical-symptoms/covid-19-pulse-oximeters-oxygen-levels-faq/
Amazon has sensors as low as $17. Any other insight from people that know more than I do about science?cwolfman13 wrote: »I know on the Navajo reservation, they are crediting oxygen sensors for significantly brining down the mortality rate as they had doctors going door to door checking on sick people and sending them to the hospital when they dipped below a certain level when otherwise they would have been more likely to try to ride it out at home.
I believe that is what ultimately triggered the POTUS going to the hospital.
IIRC, a number that was being used in relationship to POTUS was "below 94%." I have a pulse oximeter myself and got it to read 94% when it was very very cold in the house. After I warmed my hands it was back up to the usual 98%.
Good info in the link above so am reposting it:
https://www.consumerreports.org/medical-symptoms/covid-19-pulse-oximeters-oxygen-levels-faq/
@ReenieHJ - wishing the best for your husband and family.1 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »@ReenieHJ -- I hope your husband is OK.
We should start talking more about IF you get it. I'm reading about oxygen sensors being used and the level at which you should go to the hospital.
https://www.consumerreports.org/medical-symptoms/covid-19-pulse-oximeters-oxygen-levels-faq/
Amazon has sensors as low as $17. Any other insight from people that know more than I do about science?
This is an excerpt from a news article/interview with family about the youngest person to die of Covid in our county. She was 30 with no underlying conditions. I x'ed out names for privacy.
Looks like a meter could be a good investment. I ordered one this morning for us, our children and a couple relatives:
"The first sign that she had contracted COVID-19 was a loss of taste and smell. That started the Tuesday before she passed. She got tested Wednesday, which came back positive three days later.
“Over the weekend, she was showing more symptoms. Breathing was a little bit harder, but we just thought it was something that we kind of needed to work through. I mean, it's a part of being sick. It’s just kind of got to run its course. We still weren’t all that concerned,” xxxxx said.
Come Sunday, xxxxx said, they were starting to feel a little uneasy. They called a doctor who sent them off with some prescriptions. Still, no real red flags were raised.
“Monday morning, we bought an oximeter, which clips onto your finger and tells you your oxygen levels in your blood. They're supposed to be about 95% typically—anything less, you should talk to a doctor. Her’s were 60%,” xxxxx said. “That's the moment it hits you that this is bad. This is not something that you should be handling on her own at home.”
They called an ambulance. xxxxx followed his wife to the hospital. Xxxxx was admitted to the intensive care unit. Meanwhile, her husband had to leave her at the door, in accordance with safety protocols.
Xxxxx said they put Xxxxx on a mask to help her breathe, which she initially responded well to. But things started going downhill fast that evening. Doctors put her on a ventilator that didn’t seem to be working either.
“They tried everything they could think of and some surgeries that I'd never even heard before for trying to treat COVID,” xxxxx said. “She put up a really, really good fight. But she passed away that Tuesday morning.”
That was less than 24 hours after xxxx was admitted to the ICU"
4 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »@ReenieHJ -- I hope your husband is OK.
We should start talking more about IF you get it. I'm reading about oxygen sensors being used and the level at which you should go to the hospital.
https://www.consumerreports.org/medical-symptoms/covid-19-pulse-oximeters-oxygen-levels-faq/
Amazon has sensors as low as $17. Any other insight from people that know more than I do about science?
This is an excerpt from a news article/interview with family about the youngest person to die of Covid in our county. She was 30 with no underlying conditions. I x'ed out names for privacy.
Looks like a meter could be a good investment. I ordered one this morning for us, our children and a couple relatives:
"The first sign that she had contracted COVID-19 was a loss of taste and smell. That started the Tuesday before she passed. She got tested Wednesday, which came back positive three days later.
“Over the weekend, she was showing more symptoms. Breathing was a little bit harder, but we just thought it was something that we kind of needed to work through. I mean, it's a part of being sick. It’s just kind of got to run its course. We still weren’t all that concerned,” xxxxx said.
Come Sunday, xxxxx said, they were starting to feel a little uneasy. They called a doctor who sent them off with some prescriptions. Still, no real red flags were raised.
“Monday morning, we bought an oximeter, which clips onto your finger and tells you your oxygen levels in your blood. They're supposed to be about 95% typically—anything less, you should talk to a doctor. Her’s were 60%,” xxxxx said. “That's the moment it hits you that this is bad. This is not something that you should be handling on her own at home.”
They called an ambulance. xxxxx followed his wife to the hospital. Xxxxx was admitted to the intensive care unit. Meanwhile, her husband had to leave her at the door, in accordance with safety protocols.
Xxxxx said they put Xxxxx on a mask to help her breathe, which she initially responded well to. But things started going downhill fast that evening. Doctors put her on a ventilator that didn’t seem to be working either.
“They tried everything they could think of and some surgeries that I'd never even heard before for trying to treat COVID,” xxxxx said. “She put up a really, really good fight. But she passed away that Tuesday morning.”
That was less than 24 hours after xxxx was admitted to the ICU"
We had a 21 yr old woman die of COVID three days ago, here in Italy--no pre-existing conditions.4 -
I wonder if she had undiagnosed borderline breathing issues. Do you remember a few years back, there was a severe flu that was sending people and in particular children, to not just the hospital but the ICU?
My niece ended up in the ICU and my son in the hospital with it. It turned out that people and especially children with undiagnosed mild asthma were hit very hard, because they didn’t know they were at risk and so didn’t recognize the warning signs and didn’t have medications or equipment to deal with breathing issues. When they finally sought help, it was catch up time, which is not good for breathing issues. The reason my son landed up admitted to the general floor and not the ICU, was because he was already diagnosed with asthma, so we knew the warning signs and had rescue medications and equipment on hand. When those stopped being effective, we knew to bring him in right away, which is why his condition never got to the point of needing the ICU.
I’ve been wondering if the same isn’t true for those with COVID who respond unusually badly and with supposedly no underlying causes. If true, it would seem that having a pulse ox would be really helpful to be able to spot breathing issues right away and seek help.
In fact, it probably would be good for every household to have one, just like having a thermometer. I bet a lot of lives would be saved by that.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »@kimny72 and others following vaccine research closely - how do they get that 90%? Are they exposing the test subjects? That seems unethical, but if they are not, how would they know the subjects didn't get Covid because they simply were not exposed to it?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/
...The companies said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic Covid-19 than those who received a placebo.
Once there are enough numbers, they decide it's an effect, not random chance. Statistics. (It's too long since I did any advanced stats, so I'm literally incapable of explaining the details, but it's a standard protocol.)
I don't know enough about this study to know the control/treated matching protocols (how detailed), but the answer is still statistics.
There are some challenge studies (where people are intentionally exposed) but I don't personally know whether Pfizer did any. It's not unethical to expose test subjects who sign up for the study with full knowledge (informed consent) that they are going to be intentionally exposed to the disease. Volunteers are solicited, and brave, generous people sign up for it, in the hope of speeding vaccine availability . . . if the vaccine they're helping test pans out.The_Enginerd wrote: »From the information I've read, an independent assessor checks progress at a set number of cases in the group. From there, they can compare the number of cases in those individuals given the placebo vs. the vaccine. It seems they are actually reaching the goals earlier than expected because the spread of the coronavirus has been so widespread, and they are already over halfway through the 164 total cases targeted for final review.
Sources:
https://www.vox.com/21556380/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-optimism-skepticism
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/11/09/vaccine-efficacy-data
Hmm, well 100% of the people I know IRL in Massachusetts who practice scrupulous mask wearing, hand washing, and social distancing have no symptoms of the virus, so if the volunteers are doing the same, how do we know the 90% vaccine effective rate has anything to do with the vaccine?
While it is statistically unlikely that the vaccine group is better at taking precautions than the placebo group, it seems to be a stretch to award all 90% to the vaccine if the subjects were also taking precautions.
The Vox article and another link within it do caution that the announcement comes from a press release, not validated data, so I will reserve judgement until more is known.
FWIW, another statement I can't justify with details because my stats classes were so long ago: The articles I've read about the 90% thing don't sound like the reporters really understand the statistics, and are using some key numbers from a press release and not interpreting them insightfully. (I'm sure there are better technical/statistical analyses out there, but I'm not interested enough to seek them out, and I'd probably have to haul out textbooks or something to truly "get it" at the level I'd want, if I did bother. Don't wanna. I took a lot of stats back in the day, but I didn't enjoy it.)
So, this is from memory: Your observation is that behaviors can have differed, leading to an accidental difference in cases among the two groups: Yes, absolutely. As the numbers of cases (considered in light of the test population size) go up, the probability that the difference comes from random factors like that goes down (in the technical sense of probability). Size of the test population matters hugely, too, in how probable it is that the test subjects reflect the population.
Kind of think of it this way: If you flip fair coins, you get heads or tails, and over many tosses, you'll get about equal numbers of each, distributed in random patterns. (Not saying that's how viruses behave: Bear with me.) In any arbitrarily long sequence of coin flips, there is a non-zero probability that ALL flips will come up heads. But the more coin flips you do, that indefinitely long (theoretically possible) sequence of all-heads becomes less and less probable to occur as you go along. At some number of flips, the intelligent person will conclude it's overwhelmingly probable that the coin is rigged, even though a very, very long sequence of all-heads is possible.
The analogous kind of thing can happen in a more complicated test (like the analysis of the control/test populations in a virus study). The math is much more complicated, as is the underlying real-world situation, but at a certain point, the numbers can reach a point where statistics tell you pretty clearly that it's extremely unlikely that the numbers you're getting are just from sheer chance, so the overwhelming probability is that the vaccine is actually working. There's still a chance (statistically) that your conclusion is wrong, but it's very tiny.
This is a very structured statistical decision process, IMU, not just "lotta cases here, not so many there, I think we're good". Presumably, there will've also been opportunities to compare disease incidence in both arms to disease incidence in overall populations; or, to the extent there are decent-sized cohorts of the test population in a given locale, to compare results in both arms to the population incidence. While I don't believe that would be a core method of analysis, I'd be surprised if no one was looking at other hints like that (which would be less statistically valid methods by far, but could be sort of a gut-check).5 -
Even if a vaccine is available for most of us soonish and there's enough for everyone (unlikely) there's no way to know how long it will last is there? Maybe i'm missing something but the long term viability and long term effects are unable to be determined since it's hardly been long enough to really get any data.
Pfizer/BioNTech will be following the study subjects for 2 years, so the number of people exposed is likely to increase over time, even allowing for whether they are taking precautions or not. But that is a good point - people should not be having to take precautions in the future, so I don't know how such people would respond.
The 2-year period should give indication of how long the effects will last; if/when they'd need a second dose months later/a year later/etc.
I got that from Look at Next Steps and Timing on this site
https://www.pfizer.com/science/coronavirus
And that page gives more information on the trial.
And as far as antibody levels decreasing after a few months, the questions are as follows:
1) Does that mean those people are back to square one as far as immune response?
2) The next time they are exposed, will their immune response be the same? More? Faster?
3) The immune system is complex and there are more parts that respond than just antibodies. What components/cells, if any, are still active after a few months?
The 90% is from 86 subjects in the placebo group developing disease vs 8 subjects in the active vaccine group 28 days after the first dose/7 days after the second dose. Again, though, the researchers need to keep watching all 44,000 to see how the numbers change over time.
2 -
gracegettingittogether wrote: »I wonder if she had undiagnosed borderline breathing issues. Do you remember a few years back, there was a severe flu that was sending people and in particular children, to not just the hospital but the ICU?
My niece ended up in the ICU and my son in the hospital with it. It turned out that people and especially children with undiagnosed mild asthma were hit very hard, because they didn’t know they were at risk and so didn’t recognize the warning signs and didn’t have medications or equipment to deal with breathing issues. When they finally sought help, it was catch up time, which is not good for breathing issues. The reason my son landed up admitted to the general floor and not the ICU, was because he was already diagnosed with asthma, so we knew the warning signs and had rescue medications and equipment on hand. When those stopped being effective, we knew to bring him in right away, which is why his condition never got to the point of needing the ICU.
I’ve been wondering if the same isn’t true for those with COVID who respond unusually badly and with supposedly no underlying causes. If true, it would seem that having a pulse ox would be really helpful to be able to spot breathing issues right away and seek help.
In fact, it probably would be good for every household to have one, just like having a thermometer. I bet a lot of lives would be saved by that.
I know this wasn't the main point of your post, but . . .
While what you're suggesting about underlying conditions may very well be true as a generality, my fear is that some people will use this thought as a sort of talisman to blunt their worries about getting severe disease themselves, and relax their guard.
That idea that "so-and-so had asthma, but I don't" or "so-and-so was obese, but I'm not", cognitively speaking, can be held up like holding up a cross to hold back a vampire . . . but it doesn't work on viruses, and it's not how viruses work.
Very, very healthy people get sick from this. Around a dozen women on the US women's rowing national team got Covid. Some of them got very, very sick. These are among the healthiest, strongest young people in the world. (They've been a world-dominating team.) I know one of them personally. Yes, none of them died . . . but some world-class athletes sick for two months, maybe more - pretty daunting, or should be, to people who feel youth and health are giving them a hall pass. Details:
https://medium.com/classroom-champions/my-covid-experience-dae2cade00c3
Probably still too soon to know if the effects will completely go away for all of them.
I saw this magical thinking, the "I am/am not X so I won't get it" sometimes, when I was in cancer treatment. I don't know that they all realized they were doing it, but it was quite clear to me that some people were questioning me to find some reason I got cancer, but that wasn't true for them, as a way to quell their personal fears. Some ask lots of behavioral/background questions . . . I don't know how else to interpret it, particularly given patterns in when they'd *stop* asking questions - when they found enough dissimilarities between us, and sometimes I could see increasing relief in their body language as they added to their implicit "why it can't happen to me" list.
For cancer, that's just kind of an odd observation about human nature (mostly). But with a virus, I fear that "search for a reason I won't get it" or " . . . won't die" can lead to reduced risk avoidance, and that would be bad.13 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »@ReenieHJ -- I hope your husband is OK.
We should start talking more about IF you get it. I'm reading about oxygen sensors being used and the level at which you should go to the hospital.
https://www.consumerreports.org/medical-symptoms/covid-19-pulse-oximeters-oxygen-levels-faq/
Amazon has sensors as low as $17. Any other insight from people that know more than I do about science?
The This Week in Virology folks say it's not a bad idea to have one, and monitor your rate if you are sick. They aren't completely accurate obv, but if you might have covid and your normal 96 drops to a consistently lower worrisome number, it's a red flag worth getting checked out.
I read somewhere that some hospitals in an effort to free up space were sending covid patients home with pulse oximeters and telling them to call if they got a reading under a certain number based on their stats during hospital stay.
I got one off Amazon, picked one that was a step up from the cheapest one jic 3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »@kimny72 and others following vaccine research closely - how do they get that 90%? Are they exposing the test subjects? That seems unethical, but if they are not, how would they know the subjects didn't get Covid because they simply were not exposed to it?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/
...The companies said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic Covid-19 than those who received a placebo.
Once there are enough numbers, they decide it's an effect, not random chance. Statistics. (It's too long since I did any advanced stats, so I'm literally incapable of explaining the details, but it's a standard protocol.)
I don't know enough about this study to know the control/treated matching protocols (how detailed), but the answer is still statistics.
There are some challenge studies (where people are intentionally exposed) but I don't personally know whether Pfizer did any. It's not unethical to expose test subjects who sign up for the study with full knowledge (informed consent) that they are going to be intentionally exposed to the disease. Volunteers are solicited, and brave, generous people sign up for it, in the hope of speeding vaccine availability . . . if the vaccine they're helping test pans out.The_Enginerd wrote: »From the information I've read, an independent assessor checks progress at a set number of cases in the group. From there, they can compare the number of cases in those individuals given the placebo vs. the vaccine. It seems they are actually reaching the goals earlier than expected because the spread of the coronavirus has been so widespread, and they are already over halfway through the 164 total cases targeted for final review.
Sources:
https://www.vox.com/21556380/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-optimism-skepticism
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/11/09/vaccine-efficacy-data
Hmm, well 100% of the people I know IRL in Massachusetts who practice scrupulous mask wearing, hand washing, and social distancing have no symptoms of the virus, so if the volunteers are doing the same, how do we know the 90% vaccine effective rate has anything to do with the vaccine?
While it is statistically unlikely that the vaccine group is better at taking precautions than the placebo group, it seems to be a stretch to award all 90% to the vaccine if the subjects were also taking precautions.
The Vox article and another link within it do caution that the announcement comes from a press release, not validated data, so I will reserve judgement until more is known.
FWIW, another statement I can't justify with details because my stats classes were so long ago: The articles I've read about the 90% thing don't sound like the reporters really understand the statistics, and are using some key numbers from a press release and not interpreting them insightfully. (I'm sure there are better technical/statistical analyses out there, but I'm not interested enough to seek them out, and I'd probably have to haul out textbooks or something to truly "get it" at the level I'd want, if I did bother. Don't wanna. I took a lot of stats back in the day, but I didn't enjoy it.)
So, this is from memory: Your observation is that behaviors can have differed, leading to an accidental difference in cases among the two groups: Yes, absolutely. As the numbers of cases (considered in light of the test population size) go up, the probability that the difference comes from random factors like that goes down (in the technical sense of probability). Size of the test population matters hugely, too, in how probable it is that the test subjects reflect the population.
Kind of think of it this way: If you flip fair coins, you get heads or tails, and over many tosses, you'll get about equal numbers of each, distributed in random patterns. (Not saying that's how viruses behave: Bear with me.) In any arbitrarily long sequence of coin flips, there is a non-zero probability that ALL flips will come up heads. But the more coin flips you do, that indefinitely long (theoretically possible) sequence of all-heads becomes less and less probable to occur as you go along. At some number of flips, the intelligent person will conclude it's overwhelmingly probable that the coin is rigged, even though a very, very long sequence of all-heads is possible.
The analogous kind of thing can happen in a more complicated test (like the analysis of the control/test populations in a virus study). The math is much more complicated, as is the underlying real-world situation, but at a certain point, the numbers can reach a point where statistics tell you pretty clearly that it's extremely unlikely that the numbers you're getting are just from sheer chance, so the overwhelming probability is that the vaccine is actually working. There's still a chance (statistically) that your conclusion is wrong, but it's very tiny.
This is a very structured statistical decision process, IMU, not just "lotta cases here, not so many there, I think we're good". Presumably, there will've also been opportunities to compare disease incidence in both arms to disease incidence in overall populations; or, to the extent there are decent-sized cohorts of the test population in a given locale, to compare results in both arms to the population incidence. While I don't believe that would be a core method of analysis, I'd be surprised if no one was looking at other hints like that (which would be less statistically valid methods by far, but could be sort of a gut-check).
I did enjoy statistics and do remember the coin flipping
However, with coin flipping, there are just two variables - heads and tails.
With the Pfizer study, in addition to vaccine and placebo, there is also mask usage, hand washing, and social distancing. I'm curious as to how they control for taking precautions so that the 90% efficacy doesn't include that.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »@kimny72 and others following vaccine research closely - how do they get that 90%? Are they exposing the test subjects? That seems unethical, but if they are not, how would they know the subjects didn't get Covid because they simply were not exposed to it?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/
...The companies said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic Covid-19 than those who received a placebo.
Once there are enough numbers, they decide it's an effect, not random chance. Statistics. (It's too long since I did any advanced stats, so I'm literally incapable of explaining the details, but it's a standard protocol.)
I don't know enough about this study to know the control/treated matching protocols (how detailed), but the answer is still statistics.
There are some challenge studies (where people are intentionally exposed) but I don't personally know whether Pfizer did any. It's not unethical to expose test subjects who sign up for the study with full knowledge (informed consent) that they are going to be intentionally exposed to the disease. Volunteers are solicited, and brave, generous people sign up for it, in the hope of speeding vaccine availability . . . if the vaccine they're helping test pans out.The_Enginerd wrote: »From the information I've read, an independent assessor checks progress at a set number of cases in the group. From there, they can compare the number of cases in those individuals given the placebo vs. the vaccine. It seems they are actually reaching the goals earlier than expected because the spread of the coronavirus has been so widespread, and they are already over halfway through the 164 total cases targeted for final review.
Sources:
https://www.vox.com/21556380/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-optimism-skepticism
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/11/09/vaccine-efficacy-data
Hmm, well 100% of the people I know IRL in Massachusetts who practice scrupulous mask wearing, hand washing, and social distancing have no symptoms of the virus, so if the volunteers are doing the same, how do we know the 90% vaccine effective rate has anything to do with the vaccine?
While it is statistically unlikely that the vaccine group is better at taking precautions than the placebo group, it seems to be a stretch to award all 90% to the vaccine if the subjects were also taking precautions.
The Vox article and another link within it do caution that the announcement comes from a press release, not validated data, so I will reserve judgement until more is known.
FWIW, another statement I can't justify with details because my stats classes were so long ago: The articles I've read about the 90% thing don't sound like the reporters really understand the statistics, and are using some key numbers from a press release and not interpreting them insightfully. (I'm sure there are better technical/statistical analyses out there, but I'm not interested enough to seek them out, and I'd probably have to haul out textbooks or something to truly "get it" at the level I'd want, if I did bother. Don't wanna. I took a lot of stats back in the day, but I didn't enjoy it.)
So, this is from memory: Your observation is that behaviors can have differed, leading to an accidental difference in cases among the two groups: Yes, absolutely. As the numbers of cases (considered in light of the test population size) go up, the probability that the difference comes from random factors like that goes down (in the technical sense of probability). Size of the test population matters hugely, too, in how probable it is that the test subjects reflect the population.
Kind of think of it this way: If you flip fair coins, you get heads or tails, and over many tosses, you'll get about equal numbers of each, distributed in random patterns. (Not saying that's how viruses behave: Bear with me.) In any arbitrarily long sequence of coin flips, there is a non-zero probability that ALL flips will come up heads. But the more coin flips you do, that indefinitely long (theoretically possible) sequence of all-heads becomes less and less probable to occur as you go along. At some number of flips, the intelligent person will conclude it's overwhelmingly probable that the coin is rigged, even though a very, very long sequence of all-heads is possible.
The analogous kind of thing can happen in a more complicated test (like the analysis of the control/test populations in a virus study). The math is much more complicated, as is the underlying real-world situation, but at a certain point, the numbers can reach a point where statistics tell you pretty clearly that it's extremely unlikely that the numbers you're getting are just from sheer chance, so the overwhelming probability is that the vaccine is actually working. There's still a chance (statistically) that your conclusion is wrong, but it's very tiny.
This is a very structured statistical decision process, IMU, not just "lotta cases here, not so many there, I think we're good". Presumably, there will've also been opportunities to compare disease incidence in both arms to disease incidence in overall populations; or, to the extent there are decent-sized cohorts of the test population in a given locale, to compare results in both arms to the population incidence. While I don't believe that would be a core method of analysis, I'd be surprised if no one was looking at other hints like that (which would be less statistically valid methods by far, but could be sort of a gut-check).
I did enjoy statistics and do remember the coin flipping
However, with coin flipping, there are just two variables - heads and tails.
With the Pfizer study, in addition to vaccine and placebo, there is also mask usage, hand washing, and social distancing. I'm curious as to how they control for taking precautions so that the 90% efficacy doesn't include that.
They control for hand washing, mask usage, and social distancing by having a control group that gets the placebo. The point of the placebo is so that no one knows if they got the real vaccine or not, thus their likelihood of taking those other precautions shouldn't be affected by whether or not they got the vaccine, because they don't know whether they did.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »@kimny72 and others following vaccine research closely - how do they get that 90%? Are they exposing the test subjects? That seems unethical, but if they are not, how would they know the subjects didn't get Covid because they simply were not exposed to it?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/
...The companies said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic Covid-19 than those who received a placebo.
Once there are enough numbers, they decide it's an effect, not random chance. Statistics. (It's too long since I did any advanced stats, so I'm literally incapable of explaining the details, but it's a standard protocol.)
I don't know enough about this study to know the control/treated matching protocols (how detailed), but the answer is still statistics.
There are some challenge studies (where people are intentionally exposed) but I don't personally know whether Pfizer did any. It's not unethical to expose test subjects who sign up for the study with full knowledge (informed consent) that they are going to be intentionally exposed to the disease. Volunteers are solicited, and brave, generous people sign up for it, in the hope of speeding vaccine availability . . . if the vaccine they're helping test pans out.The_Enginerd wrote: »From the information I've read, an independent assessor checks progress at a set number of cases in the group. From there, they can compare the number of cases in those individuals given the placebo vs. the vaccine. It seems they are actually reaching the goals earlier than expected because the spread of the coronavirus has been so widespread, and they are already over halfway through the 164 total cases targeted for final review.
Sources:
https://www.vox.com/21556380/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-optimism-skepticism
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/11/09/vaccine-efficacy-data
Hmm, well 100% of the people I know IRL in Massachusetts who practice scrupulous mask wearing, hand washing, and social distancing have no symptoms of the virus, so if the volunteers are doing the same, how do we know the 90% vaccine effective rate has anything to do with the vaccine?
While it is statistically unlikely that the vaccine group is better at taking precautions than the placebo group, it seems to be a stretch to award all 90% to the vaccine if the subjects were also taking precautions.
The Vox article and another link within it do caution that the announcement comes from a press release, not validated data, so I will reserve judgement until more is known.
FWIW, another statement I can't justify with details because my stats classes were so long ago: The articles I've read about the 90% thing don't sound like the reporters really understand the statistics, and are using some key numbers from a press release and not interpreting them insightfully. (I'm sure there are better technical/statistical analyses out there, but I'm not interested enough to seek them out, and I'd probably have to haul out textbooks or something to truly "get it" at the level I'd want, if I did bother. Don't wanna. I took a lot of stats back in the day, but I didn't enjoy it.)
So, this is from memory: Your observation is that behaviors can have differed, leading to an accidental difference in cases among the two groups: Yes, absolutely. As the numbers of cases (considered in light of the test population size) go up, the probability that the difference comes from random factors like that goes down (in the technical sense of probability). Size of the test population matters hugely, too, in how probable it is that the test subjects reflect the population.
Kind of think of it this way: If you flip fair coins, you get heads or tails, and over many tosses, you'll get about equal numbers of each, distributed in random patterns. (Not saying that's how viruses behave: Bear with me.) In any arbitrarily long sequence of coin flips, there is a non-zero probability that ALL flips will come up heads. But the more coin flips you do, that indefinitely long (theoretically possible) sequence of all-heads becomes less and less probable to occur as you go along. At some number of flips, the intelligent person will conclude it's overwhelmingly probable that the coin is rigged, even though a very, very long sequence of all-heads is possible.
The analogous kind of thing can happen in a more complicated test (like the analysis of the control/test populations in a virus study). The math is much more complicated, as is the underlying real-world situation, but at a certain point, the numbers can reach a point where statistics tell you pretty clearly that it's extremely unlikely that the numbers you're getting are just from sheer chance, so the overwhelming probability is that the vaccine is actually working. There's still a chance (statistically) that your conclusion is wrong, but it's very tiny.
This is a very structured statistical decision process, IMU, not just "lotta cases here, not so many there, I think we're good". Presumably, there will've also been opportunities to compare disease incidence in both arms to disease incidence in overall populations; or, to the extent there are decent-sized cohorts of the test population in a given locale, to compare results in both arms to the population incidence. While I don't believe that would be a core method of analysis, I'd be surprised if no one was looking at other hints like that (which would be less statistically valid methods by far, but could be sort of a gut-check).
I did enjoy statistics and do remember the coin flipping
However, with coin flipping, there are just two variables - heads and tails.
With the Pfizer study, in addition to vaccine and placebo, there is also mask usage, hand washing, and social distancing. I'm curious as to how they control for taking precautions so that the 90% efficacy doesn't include that.
They control for hand washing, mask usage, and social distancing by having a control group that gets the placebo. The point of the placebo is so that no one knows if they got the real vaccine or not, thus their likelihood of taking those other precautions shouldn't be affected by whether or not they got the vaccine, because they don't know whether they did.
I meant control for it by not awarding to the vaccine efficacy stat results that were due to taking precautions.
If someone didn't get the virus because they weren't exposed to the virus due to taking precautions, I wouldn't want them in that 90%, because it was the mask or social distancing that was effective, not the vaccine.2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »@kimny72 and others following vaccine research closely - how do they get that 90%? Are they exposing the test subjects? That seems unethical, but if they are not, how would they know the subjects didn't get Covid because they simply were not exposed to it?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/
...The companies said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic Covid-19 than those who received a placebo.
Once there are enough numbers, they decide it's an effect, not random chance. Statistics. (It's too long since I did any advanced stats, so I'm literally incapable of explaining the details, but it's a standard protocol.)
I don't know enough about this study to know the control/treated matching protocols (how detailed), but the answer is still statistics.
There are some challenge studies (where people are intentionally exposed) but I don't personally know whether Pfizer did any. It's not unethical to expose test subjects who sign up for the study with full knowledge (informed consent) that they are going to be intentionally exposed to the disease. Volunteers are solicited, and brave, generous people sign up for it, in the hope of speeding vaccine availability . . . if the vaccine they're helping test pans out.The_Enginerd wrote: »From the information I've read, an independent assessor checks progress at a set number of cases in the group. From there, they can compare the number of cases in those individuals given the placebo vs. the vaccine. It seems they are actually reaching the goals earlier than expected because the spread of the coronavirus has been so widespread, and they are already over halfway through the 164 total cases targeted for final review.
Sources:
https://www.vox.com/21556380/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-optimism-skepticism
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/11/09/vaccine-efficacy-data
Hmm, well 100% of the people I know IRL in Massachusetts who practice scrupulous mask wearing, hand washing, and social distancing have no symptoms of the virus, so if the volunteers are doing the same, how do we know the 90% vaccine effective rate has anything to do with the vaccine?
While it is statistically unlikely that the vaccine group is better at taking precautions than the placebo group, it seems to be a stretch to award all 90% to the vaccine if the subjects were also taking precautions.
The Vox article and another link within it do caution that the announcement comes from a press release, not validated data, so I will reserve judgement until more is known.
FWIW, another statement I can't justify with details because my stats classes were so long ago: The articles I've read about the 90% thing don't sound like the reporters really understand the statistics, and are using some key numbers from a press release and not interpreting them insightfully. (I'm sure there are better technical/statistical analyses out there, but I'm not interested enough to seek them out, and I'd probably have to haul out textbooks or something to truly "get it" at the level I'd want, if I did bother. Don't wanna. I took a lot of stats back in the day, but I didn't enjoy it.)
So, this is from memory: Your observation is that behaviors can have differed, leading to an accidental difference in cases among the two groups: Yes, absolutely. As the numbers of cases (considered in light of the test population size) go up, the probability that the difference comes from random factors like that goes down (in the technical sense of probability). Size of the test population matters hugely, too, in how probable it is that the test subjects reflect the population.
Kind of think of it this way: If you flip fair coins, you get heads or tails, and over many tosses, you'll get about equal numbers of each, distributed in random patterns. (Not saying that's how viruses behave: Bear with me.) In any arbitrarily long sequence of coin flips, there is a non-zero probability that ALL flips will come up heads. But the more coin flips you do, that indefinitely long (theoretically possible) sequence of all-heads becomes less and less probable to occur as you go along. At some number of flips, the intelligent person will conclude it's overwhelmingly probable that the coin is rigged, even though a very, very long sequence of all-heads is possible.
The analogous kind of thing can happen in a more complicated test (like the analysis of the control/test populations in a virus study). The math is much more complicated, as is the underlying real-world situation, but at a certain point, the numbers can reach a point where statistics tell you pretty clearly that it's extremely unlikely that the numbers you're getting are just from sheer chance, so the overwhelming probability is that the vaccine is actually working. There's still a chance (statistically) that your conclusion is wrong, but it's very tiny.
This is a very structured statistical decision process, IMU, not just "lotta cases here, not so many there, I think we're good". Presumably, there will've also been opportunities to compare disease incidence in both arms to disease incidence in overall populations; or, to the extent there are decent-sized cohorts of the test population in a given locale, to compare results in both arms to the population incidence. While I don't believe that would be a core method of analysis, I'd be surprised if no one was looking at other hints like that (which would be less statistically valid methods by far, but could be sort of a gut-check).
I did enjoy statistics and do remember the coin flipping
However, with coin flipping, there are just two variables - heads and tails.
With the Pfizer study, in addition to vaccine and placebo, there is also mask usage, hand washing, and social distancing. I'm curious as to how they control for taking precautions so that the 90% efficacy doesn't include that.
They control for hand washing, mask usage, and social distancing by having a control group that gets the placebo. The point of the placebo is so that no one knows if they got the real vaccine or not, thus their likelihood of taking those other precautions shouldn't be affected by whether or not they got the vaccine, because they don't know whether they did.
I meant control for it by not awarding to the vaccine efficacy stat results that were due to taking precautions.
If someone didn't get the virus because they weren't exposed to the virus due to taking precautions, I wouldn't want them in that 90%.
But there shouldn't be any more virus reduction attributable to taking precautions in the vaccine group than in the placebo control group, and the 90% efficacy stat should be based on a comparison of the vaccine group to the placebo control group.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions