New Vaccine 90% Effective!

[Manforallseasons]

Pfizer says early analysis shows its Covid-19 vaccine is 90% effective

[Moses]

Pfizer says early analysis shows its Covid-19 vaccine is 90% effective

That means at least 8 of 94 vaccinated patients got COVID-19.

PRO:
- such effectiveness has potential to lower level of covid-sickness 2-3 times (why not 9? because vaccinated person will lose caution and will catch COVID more often than non-vaccinated if count per 1000 persons)
- world economy will recover more quickly

CONST: low probability to lift travel restrictions until 60-70% of humanity will be vaccinated (at least 2-3 years).

[StevieWonders]

On the contrary 90% effective means that 90% developed antibodies. These vaccines while tested in some populations where COVID-19 is present have not been tested extensively by deliberately exposing people who’ve been vaccinated to COVID-19.

[Zebedee]

Still sounds like good news, hopefully its the breakthrough we've all been waiting for!

[Up2U]

This was the breaking news article from THE NY Times....

Pfizer’s Early Data Shows Vaccine Is More Than 90% Effective https://nyti.ms/35eBHY9

[Moses]

On the contrary 90% effective means that 90% developed antibodies.

No. It means exactly what I wrote: "8 from 94". Because you may have antibodies and still got COVID if/when you will meet another kind (stamm?) of COVID-19 virus, or if level of antibodies in your blood will be too low to meet virus's agression.

Also about "8 of 94" proof:

90% effectiveness implies that no more than 8 of the 94 people who caught COVID-19 had been given the vaccine, which was administered in two shots about three weeks apart.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-pfizer/pfizer-biontech-say-their-covid-19-vaccine-is-more-than-90-effective-idUSKBN27P1CT

[goji]

Moses is correct. The Pfizer press release clearly shows the judgement is based on infection numbers. Nowhere does it mention judgement based on antibodies.
I suspect the numbers are about right too, as 90% effectiveness and 94 infections presumably means approx 86 in the placebo group and 8 in the vaccine group.

Here's the original Pfizer press release.

https://investors.pfizer.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2020/Pfizer-and-BioNTech-Announce-Vaccine-Candidate-Against-COVID-19-Achieved-Success-in-First-Interim-Analysis-from-Phase-3-Study/default.aspx

[Moses]

Here is WHO "vaccines landscape list", November3.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/blue-print/novel-coronavirus-landscape-covid-191cf012d2866d4102b9430ef02369d152.pdf

Shortly: right now only 10 vaccines are on trial phase 3 (last): 4 from China, 1 from Russia, 1 from Germany, 1 from UK and 3 from USA. Most of developers will publish first results in November (3-4 months should be enough for to collect fist bunch of data).

[Nirish guy]

So, excuse my naivety here perhaps but if one ( or a few) of the above Companies "cracks it" and develops a working vaccine I assume that no one Company can make enough vaccine fast enough to make any real dent in things ?

If so is the plan then for that Company to give / sell / licence out the "recipe" to all the other manufacturing Companies so that a working vaccine can be is distributed right around the world just as quickly as possible? Or is the plan more of that it's just "whatever" Countries that placed their bet / orders with that lucky Company WILL now be first in the queue for vaccine and all the other Countries will just to have to wait ?

I'm assuming also that this then is why Pzifer announced today that DIDNT take any of the USA's development grant funds when offered and its not perhaps so much a case of them wishing to be seen to be "independent" (as they claimed today), but more a case of them planning that IF they successful that they could then name their price and or sell to the highest bidder/s and in doing so the make WAY more than any "development grant" funds that was offered initially ?

[goji]

So, excuse my naivety here perhaps but if one ( or a few) of the above Companies "cracks it" and develops a working vaccine I assume that no one Company can make enough vaccine fast enough to make any real dent in things ?

If so is the plan then for that Company to give / sell / licence out the "recipe" to all the other manufacturing Companies so that a working vaccine can be is distributed right around the world just as quickly as possible? Or is the plan more of that it's just "whatever" Countries that placed their bet / orders with that lucky Company WILL now be first in the queue for vaccine and all the other Countries will just to have to wait ?

Pfizer supposedly can make about 1.5 billion vaccines before the end of 2021. Which at 2 doses per person would vaccinate 10% of the world's population, ~ 700 million.

From a self interest point of view, it then depends on which 700 million. The UK government has bought 40 million doses, so they could do 20 million people.
The provisional UK priority list for people to get vaccinated is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/priority-groups-for-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-advice-from-the-jcvi-25-september-2020/jcvi-updated-interim-advice-on-priority-groups-for-covid-19-vaccination

By a quick calculation, there are approximately 25 million people over 50. So if we include all the other people on the priority list, 20 million vaccines will NOT stretch far enough to cover people in their early 50s, unless there are a significant percentage of higher priority people who decline the offer of a vaccine.

The UK government has also bought doses of the Astra Zeneca Oxford vaccine and other vaccine candidates (total ~300 million doses across all vaccines). Also, contracts have been signed for the manufacture & distribution of this vaccine in a number of other countries, including Thailand, Australia & from memory, also Russia, India, US, Brazil. Probably others.

I suspect poorer countries in Africa etc will be waiting longer. I'm not saying that's how it should be, but more how it is likely to be.
Fortunately many poor countries also have very low median ages, so the death rate will be much lower anyway. Also, there is funding for some supply to these countries (eventually).

[StevieWonders]

The full press release nowhere says that those vaccinated were exposed to the virus. In fact an argument rages elsewhere about the ethics of doing any such thing although we can guess that authoritarian regimes have carried out such testing. The salient paragraph in the press release says “ Upon the conclusion of those discussions, the evaluable case count reached 94 and the DMC performed its first analysis on all cases. The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%, at 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection is achieved 28 days after the initiation of the vaccination, which consists of a 2-dose schedule. As the study continues, the final vaccine efficacy percentage may vary.”

The full press release can be found here - https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-vaccine-candidate-against

[Moses]

The full press release nowhere says that those vaccinated were exposed to the virus. In fact an argument rages elsewhere about the ethics of doing any such thing although we can guess that authoritarian regimes have carried out such testing.

They just kept members of trial to live normal life. There were no special "exposition to virus". That why from 44000+ participant of trial there were only 94 who got COVID and from them 8 were vaccinated. Now they are waiting when will be 162 cases.

[goji]

The full press release nowhere says that those vaccinated were exposed to the virus.

They don't need to explain who has been exposed to the virus, as by simple probabilities, it is very obvious that many people will be exposed. I'm surprised it's only 94 cases, since the US has about 330 million people and has had almost 10 million covid cases.

44,000 people in the trial
50% with the vaccine and 50% with the placebo.

8 infections in vaccine group of 22,000
86 infections in placebo group of 22,000

Conclusion: Vaccine is useful.

[Note: The 8 and 86 are working back from 90% effectiveness. I'm assuming the immunologists define 90% effectiveness in the obvious way. ]

[StevieWonders]

They don't need to explain who has been exposed to the virus, as by simple probabilities, it is very obvious that many people will be exposed. I'm surprised it's only 94 cases, since the US has about 330 million people and has had almost 10 million covid cases.

44,000 people in the trial
50% with the vaccine and 50% with the placebo.

8 infections in vaccine group of 22,000
86 infections in placebo group of 22,000

Conclusion: Vaccine is useful.

[Note: The 8 and 86 are working back from 90% effectiveness. I'm assuming the immunologists define 90% effectiveness in the obvious way. ]To quote 8 vs. 94 and say that gives 90% coverage is statistically meaningless. There’s no count of how many people in either group were exposed to the virus merely how many caught the virus.

This is a new type of vaccine - mRNA. These vaccines need to be stored at -80c. This could create major logistical challenges for mass treatment outside major urban areas and in low or middle income countries.

[Moses]

To quote 8 vs. 94 and say that gives 90% coverage is statistically meaningless.

No. Opposite. At time of such trials controlling organisation in advance names numbers when they will check effectiveness.

From press-release:

After discussion with the FDA, the companies recently elected to drop the 32-case interim analysis and conduct the first interim analysis at a minimum of 62 cases. Upon the conclusion of those discussions, the evaluable case count reached 94 and the DMC performed its first analysis on all cases.

[goji]

To quote 8 vs. 94 and say that gives 90% coverage is statistically meaningless. There’s no count of how many people in either group were exposed to the virus merely how many caught the virus.

Do you seriously expect a material difference between virus exposure rates for 2 groups of 22,000 who are randomly assigned the vaccine ?

Also, no one is referring to 90% coverage. They are referring to 90% effectiveness.
If the vaccine group infection rate is 90% lower than the placebo group, anyone who takes the time to think about it might conclude that it's 90% effective.
Even if they are a few percent out, the result is so far away from 0% effective that it's still worth having.

[StevieWonders]

Do you seriously expect a material difference between virus exposure rates for 2 groups of 22,000 who are randomly assigned the vaccine?None of us here have any idea of that particular P(A|B) and won’t until the final outcomes are published in full rather than in a press release.

[goji]

I would expect almost all members could figure this out in seconds.
And spot when the mickey is being taken.

[StevieWonders]

So you’re not interested in discussing Conditional Probability?

[goji]

So you’re not interested in discussing Conditional Probability?

With two randomized groups of 22,000 and only 94 infections, that has no material influence on the result. So I have zero interest in discussing it. But don't let me stop you posting a detailed mathematical justification.

When preparing your thesis, please reference the following as well....... :)

The full press release nowhere says that those vaccinated were exposed to the virus.

[latintopxxx]

ooo u so clever...u know acronyms...

[StevieWonders]

So I have zero interest in discussing it.How disappointing. Only the other day I received a PM telling me that you are one of the Forum’s leading intellectuals.

[arsenal]

Well I guess it don't matter much if superstevie is or isn't our recently departed elite writing brethren cos he acts the same. Dropping little poison pellets all over the place. Oh well. It was nice here for a while..

[StevieWonders]

Well I guess it don't matter much if superstevie is or isn't our recently departed elite writing brethren cos he acts the same. Dropping little poison pellets all over the place. Oh well. It was nice here for a while..I think I’m right in saying that goji is quoting me out of context. In what I wrote the sentence he quoted links to the sentence which immediately follows it, like a wing nut and a screw does the job of tightly coupling. From that it’s perfectly obvious that the word “deliberately” is implied in the first sentence. Re-reading what I wrote taken as a whole you’ll find does the job.

[StevieWonders]

ooo u so clever...u know acronyms... .....

I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I’m not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant.

[goji]

Must not feed the trolls.

[StevieWonders]

Pfizer says early analysis shows its Covid-19 vaccine is 90% effectiveAs I said from the start, these results are not statistically robust. Here’s one of dozens of articles that have come out in the last 24 hours questioning Pfizer’s assertions https://apple.news/AupZiNm1xSESViZFOC2LetQ


Several experts say they’re concerned that the public is getting an incomplete picture about the vaccine’s success that doesn’t reveal critical information, such as which demographic groups it protected and whether it was from a mild or severe form of the virus. There’s also the real possibility that the 90-percent figure could change as the trial ticks on and investigators collect more results. Plus, the unpublished results have not been peer-reviewed or even released as a preliminary preprint.