Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="probinson" data-source="post: 76845735" data-attributes="member: 121249"><p>Let's go all the way back to the original clinical trial data that Pfizer submitted to the FDA. The claim of 95%+ efficacy was based on 162 infections in the placebo arm and 8 infections in the vaccinated arm. That's right folks, the decision to vaccinate the entire planet was based on just 170 people observed over a few months.</p><p></p><p>So this data shows a <em>relative</em> risk reduction (RRR) of >95%. This was shouted from the rooftops and heralded as one of the most astounding breakthroughs in medicine in our lifetimes.</p><p></p><p>What was not reported so widely was the <em>absolute</em> risk reduction (ARR). Out of 20,000 people in the placebo group, 162 got COVID while out of 20,000 people in the vaccinated group, 8 got COVID. This equates to rates of infection of .0081 and .0004 respectively, which means that the absolute risk reduction for those who had COVID vaccines in Pfizer's trial was about 0.77%. Do you think that people would have rushed out in droves to get vaccinated if the media had reported that your absolute risk reduction would have been 0.77%?</p><p></p><p>Then, we need to calculate the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one COVID infection (NNV - number needed to vaccinate). This is calculated by taking 100/ARR%, in this case, 100/0.77, which gives us ~130. This means that 130 people must be vaccinated to prevent one case of COVID.</p><p></p><p>Lest you think I'm making this up, consider this study, that actually shows even <em>higher </em>estimates of NNV;</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="font-size: 15px"><strong><em>Risk reduction with vaccines</em></strong></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em><a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#T1" target="_blank">Table 1</a> shows data from the RCTs of Pfizer and Moderna and from the Israeli population-based study. The Pfizer and Moderna studies addressed the vaccines’ efficacy, which refers to their effects within controlled, experimental situations. The RRRs for both vaccines were in the range of 95 percent. This means that, among all those who became ill, 95 percent were in the unvaccinated group. The publications for these studies did not report ARRs, but data published in the studies permitted our calculation of ARRs. The calculated ARRs for vaccinated subjects compared to the baseline risk for unvaccinated subjects were in the range of 1 percent. The NNV to prevent one symptomatic infection, calculated from the ARR, was 141 for mild COVID and 2,500 for severe COVID in the Pfizer study, versus 88 and 500 in the Moderna study.</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>....</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em><span style="font-size: 15px"><strong>Comparisons with vaccines for other viral diseases</strong></span></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>The ARRs and NNVs achieved by COVID vaccines so far appear somewhat less favorable than those achieved by vaccines for some other viral diseases. For instance, systematic reviews of influenza vaccines have revealed NNVs to prevent symptomatic infections between 12 and 94.<a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#ref-5" target="_blank">5</a> Studies of herpes zoster vaccine have yielded NNVs for symptomatic infections between 11 and 43.<a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#ref-6" target="_blank">6</a> For human papilloma virus vaccine, calculated NNV to prevent one case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in one study was 129.<a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#ref-23" target="_blank">23</a> Regarding smallpox, the NNV to prevent one death was four (<a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#T1" target="_blank">Table 1</a>, calculated from data in <a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#ref-24" target="_blank">24</a>,<a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#ref-25" target="_blank">25</a>).</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em><a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#T1" target="_blank">COVID-19 vaccines and evidence-based medicine</a></em></p><p></p><p>The next time someone tries to compare the smallpox vaccine to the COVID vaccine, you should point out that the number needed to vaccinate for smallpox to prevent one death was four whereas the COVID vaccine is somewhere between 500 and 2,500 or higher. Just because they're both "vaccines" does not mean they are equal in efficacy.</p><p></p><p>The NNV and ARR are important factors in understanding the true efficacy of the vaccines. When you first read that the COVID vaccine was "95% effective", you almost certainly believed that meant it would stop 95% of infections. But that was never true if you actually looked at the results of Pfizer's own data.</p><p></p><p>This is not an "anti-vax" position. It is the simple truth of what Pfizer's own clinical study data shows. Given the fact that mRNA vaccines had NEVER before been used in human beings and there was no long-term data, the implementation and rollout of vaccines SHOULD have been more nuanced and methodical.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="probinson, post: 76845735, member: 121249"] Let's go all the way back to the original clinical trial data that Pfizer submitted to the FDA. The claim of 95%+ efficacy was based on 162 infections in the placebo arm and 8 infections in the vaccinated arm. That's right folks, the decision to vaccinate the entire planet was based on just 170 people observed over a few months. So this data shows a [I]relative[/I] risk reduction (RRR) of >95%. This was shouted from the rooftops and heralded as one of the most astounding breakthroughs in medicine in our lifetimes. What was not reported so widely was the [I]absolute[/I] risk reduction (ARR). Out of 20,000 people in the placebo group, 162 got COVID while out of 20,000 people in the vaccinated group, 8 got COVID. This equates to rates of infection of .0081 and .0004 respectively, which means that the absolute risk reduction for those who had COVID vaccines in Pfizer's trial was about 0.77%. Do you think that people would have rushed out in droves to get vaccinated if the media had reported that your absolute risk reduction would have been 0.77%? Then, we need to calculate the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one COVID infection (NNV - number needed to vaccinate). This is calculated by taking 100/ARR%, in this case, 100/0.77, which gives us ~130. This means that 130 people must be vaccinated to prevent one case of COVID. Lest you think I'm making this up, consider this study, that actually shows even [I]higher [/I]estimates of NNV; [INDENT][SIZE=4][B][I]Risk reduction with vaccines[/I][/B][/SIZE] [I][URL='https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#T1']Table 1[/URL] shows data from the RCTs of Pfizer and Moderna and from the Israeli population-based study. The Pfizer and Moderna studies addressed the vaccines’ efficacy, which refers to their effects within controlled, experimental situations. The RRRs for both vaccines were in the range of 95 percent. This means that, among all those who became ill, 95 percent were in the unvaccinated group. The publications for these studies did not report ARRs, but data published in the studies permitted our calculation of ARRs. The calculated ARRs for vaccinated subjects compared to the baseline risk for unvaccinated subjects were in the range of 1 percent. The NNV to prevent one symptomatic infection, calculated from the ARR, was 141 for mild COVID and 2,500 for severe COVID in the Pfizer study, versus 88 and 500 in the Moderna study. .... [SIZE=4][B]Comparisons with vaccines for other viral diseases[/B][/SIZE] The ARRs and NNVs achieved by COVID vaccines so far appear somewhat less favorable than those achieved by vaccines for some other viral diseases. For instance, systematic reviews of influenza vaccines have revealed NNVs to prevent symptomatic infections between 12 and 94.[URL='https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#ref-5']5[/URL] Studies of herpes zoster vaccine have yielded NNVs for symptomatic infections between 11 and 43.[URL='https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#ref-6']6[/URL] For human papilloma virus vaccine, calculated NNV to prevent one case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in one study was 129.[URL='https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#ref-23']23[/URL] Regarding smallpox, the NNV to prevent one death was four ([URL='https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#T1']Table 1[/URL], calculated from data in [URL='https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#ref-24']24[/URL],[URL='https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#ref-25']25[/URL]). [URL='https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259039v1.full#T1']COVID-19 vaccines and evidence-based medicine[/URL][/I][/INDENT] The next time someone tries to compare the smallpox vaccine to the COVID vaccine, you should point out that the number needed to vaccinate for smallpox to prevent one death was four whereas the COVID vaccine is somewhere between 500 and 2,500 or higher. Just because they're both "vaccines" does not mean they are equal in efficacy. The NNV and ARR are important factors in understanding the true efficacy of the vaccines. When you first read that the COVID vaccine was "95% effective", you almost certainly believed that meant it would stop 95% of infections. But that was never true if you actually looked at the results of Pfizer's own data. This is not an "anti-vax" position. It is the simple truth of what Pfizer's own clinical study data shows. Given the fact that mRNA vaccines had NEVER before been used in human beings and there was no long-term data, the implementation and rollout of vaccines SHOULD have been more nuanced and methodical. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital
Top
Bottom