Not to pile on, but my second argument is important - like the NFL, the Pfizer trial design (and, I assume, the Moderna trial) do NOT simply accept "Confirmed COVID" as equal to "positive test result". In Pfizer trial, a positive test and at least one symptom is required:
A confirmatory hint: a lot of the news coverage says the vaccine are good at preventing people from getting "sick with COVID". Careful and accurate, IMHO.
But this list of symptoms is a list of symptoms that indicate that you are sick with *literally any* disease. Given that we enrolled *thousands* of already sick people who spend lots of time in hospitals, if they could asymptomatically catch COVID without getting "sick with COVID", they would then come in with their other diseases and test positive for COVID.
First, do you really want to stand by what you wrote here?
"Where does this idea that a vaccinated person could still be carrying COVID come from? Whenever you dig into the details of this concept, it comes from the fact that a rigorous study of asymptomatic COVID transmission among vaccinated participants was not a part of the Phase 3 study. In other words, we cannot *prove* that COVID *doesn’t* asymptomatically tag along for the ride in a vaccinated person."
From my reading, the idea comes *first* from a strong theoretical reason for doubting an intramuscular vaccine will prevent initial infection in the mucosal membranes. So it's not as simple as "we didn't test for that result" - it's "we have reason to think we would not find that result and in any case, we didn't test for it."
As to "thousands" of people are in and out of hospitals and routinely tested for their other ailments, we are talking about enrollments of 30k-43k over relatively short periods (Moderna began enrolling people July 27; made headlines on Nov 16, with some saying they held off until after election.)
My *guess* is "thousands" is high, but if you have surveys or evidence to support it I'm happy to look.
And 'ailments' could include things like a heart attack, which can easily happen other COVID symptoms like a cough or fever.
I agree with this and made a similar point. Poli's argument is that some of the people in both groups were tested due to unrelated events, and that's true, but because the study wasn't looking for asymptomatic cases, we don't know how many there are; they were uncounted on both sides. Vaccine *probably* still efficacious at that too, but probably significantly less than 90%.
Your very interesting point about the test for asymptomatic COVID carriers had this result: At Day 28 (second injection), there were 38 asymptomatic test-positive in the placebo arm vs. 14 in thew vaccine arm.
The 'new cases' curve flattens pretty dramatically after Day 12. So either that second shot *really* knocks asymptomatic cases down to zero or the vaccine just reduces but doesn't eliminate small nasal infections. In their summary Moderna emphasized "Too soon to say, more study needed".
"Preliminary data were available regarding prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection; SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results from nasopharyngeal swabs collected on the day of the second vaccine dose indicated lower risk of asymptomatic infection among vaccine recipients compared to placebo recipients (RR 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.68; evidence type 4, serious risk of bias and very serious concern for indirectness)."
But what I was seeking is a simple table summarizing the clinician's results. I am sure that "COVID Test Positive, no clinical symptoms" was recorded somewhere, right? For both the placebo and vaccine arms. And who would throw it away?
Haven't found it yet. Most of the Moderan results seem to be in this NEJM study, with appendices. No luck with "Supplementary Appendix" (although I miss stuff; Distrust But Verify!). "Research Summary" is the other obvious source for stray notes.
Thank your for tracking down page citations. Bookmarking this post.
I'm not sure this data would exist in the Pfizer trial at all because I don't think the protocol would get an unweighted sample.
The Moderna numbers *are* statistically significant though. I think they don't brag about it more because it wasn't the endpoint they were evaluated on and might be concerned it would encourage risky behavior. Also, anything they say outside of dry papers could be interpreted by FDA as unlawful marketing. Finally, companies in general shy away from testing things they aren't sure will make them look great because FDA reviewers can quibble about details that don't make sense and even ask for (super-costly) follow-up research, so I'm not sure we'll get definitive studies soon. Maybe in several months. (When drug companies find themselves in a crowded space as the COVID vaccine will soon be, they usually run more studies in an effort to show they are the best-in-class treatment).
Plus much of the press won't get it and will lead to dumb stories. Say the efficacy of complete suppression is 70%. Guarantee you some reporter would write a story wondering whether the 70% effective Chinese vaccine is actually better. And antivaxxers and coronaskeptics will say "they said it was 94%, but it's actually 70%, what will it be tomorrow for the disease with a 99.9% survival rate?"--comparing three dissimilar rates as effortlessly as they currently compare two.
Naturally I came to this Jan 18 WSJ article after I'd posted. Good summary of the issues. Mentions the Moderna point you made but has the inevitable "small sample, more studies needed" disclaimer.
"Double blind studies on masks". Right? Although lately I think we've seen some double-dumb studies, or at least behavior...
1. You focused on people who get vaccinated. What about people who actually got Covid? I just recovered about a week ago, and find it hard to believe that I would spread it, at least for a 3-6 month period. In general, how much talk about what the vaccine does applies to what antibodies from the actual disease does?
2. Does the fact that different strains exist factor into today's post? Does the vaccine prevent you getting different strains and/or carrying them asymptomatically?
If these seem a bit off-topic, I apologize. I'm reevaluating things now that I've recovered. The biggest reason why I was fine with mask mandates was because I didn't want to spread it if I had it, and that's off the table for a little while, so I'm trying to see what's left.
1) I do not know how strong immunity is for people who have gotten COVID, my understanding is that it isn't quite as strong as for people who get the vaccine, but you are probably safe until such a point as you can get the vaccine.
2) We don't have a lot of evidence regarding the vaccine and the emerging strains. I expect that data will start showing up in the next two months, but it takes time. This goes both ways though: We don't have a lot of evidence that the vaccine *isn't* effective against the emerging strains and that's kind of the default assumption. I do know that the pharm companies are looking into updating the vaccine to specifically target the new strains (much in the same way that we update the flu vaccine every year) so if the emerging strains do escape the antibodies that the vaccine produces, it would be a frustrating setback, but hopefully one we can plan for and mitigate.
Glad you are providing a accurate message rather than the hype that the MSM is trumpeting. Fearporn is is their standard. Politics is driving the coverage now.
Respectfully disagree. From what I've read (IANA doctor) this is the issue: the FIRST battlefield of COVID infection is the mucosal membrane of the upper respiratory tract (nose/throat.) A nasal-spray type vaccine would be great for preventing infection there; the intramuscular vaccines provoke a much weaker mucosal membrane response.
However, people aren't dying of a runny nose! COVID gets serious when it circulates in the bloodstream to other organs - lungs, kidneys, etc. The intramuscular shot-in-the-arm vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer do a great job of preventing COVID from expanding beyond the initial beachhead. Serious disease and death avoided!
My takeaway - a mild asymptomatic upper respiratory infection is entirely possible even after the vaccine has provoked antibodies. How long and how transmissible? Probably not long and not very, but who knows?
Your point is that during the trials some of the vaccinated arm should have been getting tested for other reasons and been a stray asymptomatic positive. Definitely maybe!
But in the placebo arm, the chart stops with 2% infected. Presumably they were detected either because they had COVID symptoms or they had 'something else' which prompted a COVID test. We don't know the breakdown of that number but the 2% total is still small. Your argument (as I follow it) is to that *IF* the vaccine fails to prevent initial infection there should be some detectable number of people having (eg) a heart attack overlapped with a transient mild COVID infection in the vaccine arm.
I have not pushed any numbers around but if I were inclined I'd try some assumptions and modeling about what proportion of the placebo group would need to be COVID positive but otherwise asymptomatic to produce a notable result if that proportion carries over into the vaccine arm. Well within your scope! My *suspicion* is that if I modeled it I'd come away thinking asymptomatic infection in the vaccinated could still be a thing. I'd take a stab at modeling it but I'd have more confidence in your result anyway.
I can't find my favorite article on this topic but this article is a start.
"It is not clear if the vaccine elicits formation of different kinds of antibodies – like IgE or IgA – in addition to IgG. IgG is the main antibody in circulation and was the one that was measured in the trials, but IgA is the main antibody defense in mucosal surfaces. Theoretically, one could be immune systemically but still have viruses on the mucosal surfaces, like the upper respiratory airway, and could be infectious to others. Research is ongoing on this question."
Thank you so much for this newsletter. I have forwarded this post to my dad after my uncle sent him an article by an anti-vaxer on how the Covid vaccines are not legally vaccines and won't do anything to stop transmission or illness. I was much too upset to do anything but flip out and go "this article is garbage and goes against everything I have read for a year by people I trust. Stop reading the garbage he sends you." This helped re-enforce what I was saying.
A thread by doctor summarizing the reasons to believe vaccinated people would not be infectious and opining as you do that returning to normal is a central part of the pitch for vaccines and shouldn't be undermined by theoretical quibbles. https://twitter.com/AaronRichterman/status/1349003751823175685
****And you’ve got me there. This is why the headlines say “Vaccines *may* not stop the virus” instead of “Vaccines do not stop the virus”. They couch this in a language of uncertainty because “proof” has a very specific definition.****
This happened over the summer as well with numerous reports about COVID maybe reinfecting people ~3-4 months after recovery, with antibody defense disappearing. What had actually been found in the studies being quoted was that there was evidence that immunity lasted AT LEAST ~3-4 months, because that's how long we had been able to observe people following recovery. Ultimately it's very irresponsible reporting in search of fear-driven clicks.
Absence of evidence =/= absence of evidence and all that.
1. Calling immunity after two weeks from first shot is irresponsible. The data rolling out of Israel appears to show it's not quite as effective as that for seniors, which makes sense both from the perspective of antibody titers and from the side effects (fever-like side effects suggest immune response). For both vaccines, both of these indicators are stronger for younger patients. Older patients really need that second shot. Maybe you can say for younger patients two weeks is good to go, but complex messaging turns into hash, and probably better to say the line is 7-days after the second dose, which is, after all, the vaccine study endpoint.
2. I think you overstate the Pfizer chart. While it's true that the protocol resulted in lots and lots of people being tested, there are likely missed completely asymptomatic people in both groups, and this means less than the 90%+ efficacy for suppression. The protocol practically required everyone with so much as a sniffle to get tested, but if the vaccine permits some people to culture the virus for a while but at a low asymptomatic level, this would be missed because the protocol wasn't set up to detect it. Or to put it another way: participants were not randomly selected to be swabbed, but only those with symptoms consistent with an infection; the protocol was not designed to look for how much of the iceberg was submerged.
Imagine a test of fire-retardant lumber where the evaluation occurs whenever the fire department was called and the endpoint is whether the insurance company deemed the structure a total loss and observing a dramatic reduction in total loses. And then concluding that fire-retardant lumber prevents *all* fires within dwellings. Well, no it doesn't--at least not to the same efficacy--because we simply didn't record kitchen fires and small fires remedied with a fire extinguisher. Telling people with fire-retardant lumber to throw out their fire extinguishers would be a mistake!
This is why people point instead to the Moderna study for the protective effect. The Moderna protocol tested everyone at the point of the second shot, and this showed a statistically significant difference, strongly suggestion complete suppression of the disease for some portion of the participants at some point after the first dose, but probably not as high as the 94% topline. And this makes sense--it makes sense that some people are not bulletproof immune, but have a sufficiently tuned-up immune response to keep the infection at a very low level.
3. All that said, I tend to agree that the message should be that the vaccines are hugely efficacious, and that once enough people have them, mask rules can fall aside. The real issue is that we already have people walking into Walmart and claiming to be a sovereign citizen or whatever, and a rule that post-vaccine and you're vine is unmanageable (either unenforceable if we go by people's say-so, or something Americans will viscerally reject, if we're talking about vaccine passports). I agree that public health should try to communicate this as adults and not through white lies and just say: we won't need masks once there's enough community immunity, but until then in public places it only works to have one rule for everyone.
4. I'd like to know how a double-blind study with masks can be performed.
Oh, I didn't have a link handy for the Israel data earlier, but here's a nice read-out from one of Israel's four HMOs. Among people as old as Israel is immunizing (much older than the Moderna and Pfizer trials on average), the rates only ***start to diverge*** at 14 days, and you'd not really feel comfortable until after the second shot. https://twitter.com/segal_eran/status/1352696337477890049
Excellent. Thank you. I also almost lose my mind at how crazy our health care professionals have made so many people during this entire cluster you now what. I had an argument with a guy whgo said, of the vaccines, "but there's still a 5% chance of catching the disease, which isn't nil." OK, you've reduced the possibility by 95% of maybe (maybe not, not everyone would get this anyway) getting the disease, plus 80% of the people who do get it basically don't even know they do have it, plus of the people who do get it and aren't over 75 or really fat or have a few other known issues something like 99.7% survive. The odds of being struck by lkightening aren't much lower than the odds of dying of COVID after getting two shots of the vaccine. A bit of an exageration, I know.
Not to pile on, but my second argument is important - like the NFL, the Pfizer trial design (and, I assume, the Moderna trial) do NOT simply accept "Confirmed COVID" as equal to "positive test result". In Pfizer trial, a positive test and at least one symptom is required:
• Fever;
• New or increased cough;
• New or increased shortness of breath;
• Chills;
• New or increased muscle pain;
• New loss of taste or smell;
• Sore throat;
• Diarrhea;
• Vomiting.
Their protocol, p. 55/6 of text.
https://pfe-pfizercom-d8-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf
A confirmatory hint: a lot of the news coverage says the vaccine are good at preventing people from getting "sick with COVID". Careful and accurate, IMHO.
But this list of symptoms is a list of symptoms that indicate that you are sick with *literally any* disease. Given that we enrolled *thousands* of already sick people who spend lots of time in hospitals, if they could asymptomatically catch COVID without getting "sick with COVID", they would then come in with their other diseases and test positive for COVID.
But they didn't.
OK, trench warfare it is.
First, do you really want to stand by what you wrote here?
"Where does this idea that a vaccinated person could still be carrying COVID come from? Whenever you dig into the details of this concept, it comes from the fact that a rigorous study of asymptomatic COVID transmission among vaccinated participants was not a part of the Phase 3 study. In other words, we cannot *prove* that COVID *doesn’t* asymptomatically tag along for the ride in a vaccinated person."
From my reading, the idea comes *first* from a strong theoretical reason for doubting an intramuscular vaccine will prevent initial infection in the mucosal membranes. So it's not as simple as "we didn't test for that result" - it's "we have reason to think we would not find that result and in any case, we didn't test for it."
As to "thousands" of people are in and out of hospitals and routinely tested for their other ailments, we are talking about enrollments of 30k-43k over relatively short periods (Moderna began enrolling people July 27; made headlines on Nov 16, with some saying they held off until after election.)
My *guess* is "thousands" is high, but if you have surveys or evidence to support it I'm happy to look.
And 'ailments' could include things like a heart attack, which can easily happen other COVID symptoms like a cough or fever.
I agree with this and made a similar point. Poli's argument is that some of the people in both groups were tested due to unrelated events, and that's true, but because the study wasn't looking for asymptomatic cases, we don't know how many there are; they were uncounted on both sides. Vaccine *probably* still efficacious at that too, but probably significantly less than 90%.
Hmm, seek and ye shall not find...
Your very interesting point about the test for asymptomatic COVID carriers had this result: At Day 28 (second injection), there were 38 asymptomatic test-positive in the placebo arm vs. 14 in thew vaccine arm.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/15/fda-scientists-endorse-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-as-documents-provide-new-hints-on-efficacy/
The 'new cases' curve flattens pretty dramatically after Day 12. So either that second shot *really* knocks asymptomatic cases down to zero or the vaccine just reduces but doesn't eliminate small nasal infections. In their summary Moderna emphasized "Too soon to say, more study needed".
P. 49:
https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download
CDC:
"Preliminary data were available regarding prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection; SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results from nasopharyngeal swabs collected on the day of the second vaccine dose indicated lower risk of asymptomatic infection among vaccine recipients compared to placebo recipients (RR 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.68; evidence type 4, serious risk of bias and very serious concern for indirectness)."
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/recs/grade/covid-19-moderna-vaccine.html
But what I was seeking is a simple table summarizing the clinician's results. I am sure that "COVID Test Positive, no clinical symptoms" was recorded somewhere, right? For both the placebo and vaccine arms. And who would throw it away?
Haven't found it yet. Most of the Moderan results seem to be in this NEJM study, with appendices. No luck with "Supplementary Appendix" (although I miss stuff; Distrust But Verify!). "Research Summary" is the other obvious source for stray notes.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
Thank your for tracking down page citations. Bookmarking this post.
I'm not sure this data would exist in the Pfizer trial at all because I don't think the protocol would get an unweighted sample.
The Moderna numbers *are* statistically significant though. I think they don't brag about it more because it wasn't the endpoint they were evaluated on and might be concerned it would encourage risky behavior. Also, anything they say outside of dry papers could be interpreted by FDA as unlawful marketing. Finally, companies in general shy away from testing things they aren't sure will make them look great because FDA reviewers can quibble about details that don't make sense and even ask for (super-costly) follow-up research, so I'm not sure we'll get definitive studies soon. Maybe in several months. (When drug companies find themselves in a crowded space as the COVID vaccine will soon be, they usually run more studies in an effort to show they are the best-in-class treatment).
Plus much of the press won't get it and will lead to dumb stories. Say the efficacy of complete suppression is 70%. Guarantee you some reporter would write a story wondering whether the 70% effective Chinese vaccine is actually better. And antivaxxers and coronaskeptics will say "they said it was 94%, but it's actually 70%, what will it be tomorrow for the disease with a 99.9% survival rate?"--comparing three dissimilar rates as effortlessly as they currently compare two.
Naturally I came to this Jan 18 WSJ article after I'd posted. Good summary of the issues. Mentions the Moderna point you made but has the inevitable "small sample, more studies needed" disclaimer.
"Double blind studies on masks". Right? Although lately I think we've seen some double-dumb studies, or at least behavior...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-you-still-spread-covid-19-after-you-get-vaccinated-11610379107?mod=article_inline
Thanks for this. Two questions:
1. You focused on people who get vaccinated. What about people who actually got Covid? I just recovered about a week ago, and find it hard to believe that I would spread it, at least for a 3-6 month period. In general, how much talk about what the vaccine does applies to what antibodies from the actual disease does?
2. Does the fact that different strains exist factor into today's post? Does the vaccine prevent you getting different strains and/or carrying them asymptomatically?
If these seem a bit off-topic, I apologize. I'm reevaluating things now that I've recovered. The biggest reason why I was fine with mask mandates was because I didn't want to spread it if I had it, and that's off the table for a little while, so I'm trying to see what's left.
- Brendan (TallBlondeGuy on Twitter)
1) I do not know how strong immunity is for people who have gotten COVID, my understanding is that it isn't quite as strong as for people who get the vaccine, but you are probably safe until such a point as you can get the vaccine.
2) We don't have a lot of evidence regarding the vaccine and the emerging strains. I expect that data will start showing up in the next two months, but it takes time. This goes both ways though: We don't have a lot of evidence that the vaccine *isn't* effective against the emerging strains and that's kind of the default assumption. I do know that the pharm companies are looking into updating the vaccine to specifically target the new strains (much in the same way that we update the flu vaccine every year) so if the emerging strains do escape the antibodies that the vaccine produces, it would be a frustrating setback, but hopefully one we can plan for and mitigate.
Glad you are providing a accurate message rather than the hype that the MSM is trumpeting. Fearporn is is their standard. Politics is driving the coverage now.
Respectfully disagree. From what I've read (IANA doctor) this is the issue: the FIRST battlefield of COVID infection is the mucosal membrane of the upper respiratory tract (nose/throat.) A nasal-spray type vaccine would be great for preventing infection there; the intramuscular vaccines provoke a much weaker mucosal membrane response.
However, people aren't dying of a runny nose! COVID gets serious when it circulates in the bloodstream to other organs - lungs, kidneys, etc. The intramuscular shot-in-the-arm vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer do a great job of preventing COVID from expanding beyond the initial beachhead. Serious disease and death avoided!
My takeaway - a mild asymptomatic upper respiratory infection is entirely possible even after the vaccine has provoked antibodies. How long and how transmissible? Probably not long and not very, but who knows?
Your point is that during the trials some of the vaccinated arm should have been getting tested for other reasons and been a stray asymptomatic positive. Definitely maybe!
But in the placebo arm, the chart stops with 2% infected. Presumably they were detected either because they had COVID symptoms or they had 'something else' which prompted a COVID test. We don't know the breakdown of that number but the 2% total is still small. Your argument (as I follow it) is to that *IF* the vaccine fails to prevent initial infection there should be some detectable number of people having (eg) a heart attack overlapped with a transient mild COVID infection in the vaccine arm.
I have not pushed any numbers around but if I were inclined I'd try some assumptions and modeling about what proportion of the placebo group would need to be COVID positive but otherwise asymptomatic to produce a notable result if that proportion carries over into the vaccine arm. Well within your scope! My *suspicion* is that if I modeled it I'd come away thinking asymptomatic infection in the vaccinated could still be a thing. I'd take a stab at modeling it but I'd have more confidence in your result anyway.
I can't find my favorite article on this topic but this article is a start.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.611337/full
Same points in a Q&A. "Research is ongoing":
"It is not clear if the vaccine elicits formation of different kinds of antibodies – like IgE or IgA – in addition to IgG. IgG is the main antibody in circulation and was the one that was measured in the trials, but IgA is the main antibody defense in mucosal surfaces. Theoretically, one could be immune systemically but still have viruses on the mucosal surfaces, like the upper respiratory airway, and could be infectious to others. Research is ongoing on this question."
https://ampiopharma.com/news/qa-with-dr-david-bar-or-on-the-covid-19-vaccines-and-the-variants/
Thank you so much for this newsletter. I have forwarded this post to my dad after my uncle sent him an article by an anti-vaxer on how the Covid vaccines are not legally vaccines and won't do anything to stop transmission or illness. I was much too upset to do anything but flip out and go "this article is garbage and goes against everything I have read for a year by people I trust. Stop reading the garbage he sends you." This helped re-enforce what I was saying.
A thread by doctor summarizing the reasons to believe vaccinated people would not be infectious and opining as you do that returning to normal is a central part of the pitch for vaccines and shouldn't be undermined by theoretical quibbles. https://twitter.com/AaronRichterman/status/1349003751823175685
****And you’ve got me there. This is why the headlines say “Vaccines *may* not stop the virus” instead of “Vaccines do not stop the virus”. They couch this in a language of uncertainty because “proof” has a very specific definition.****
This happened over the summer as well with numerous reports about COVID maybe reinfecting people ~3-4 months after recovery, with antibody defense disappearing. What had actually been found in the studies being quoted was that there was evidence that immunity lasted AT LEAST ~3-4 months, because that's how long we had been able to observe people following recovery. Ultimately it's very irresponsible reporting in search of fear-driven clicks.
Absence of evidence =/= absence of evidence and all that.
A few comments:
1. Calling immunity after two weeks from first shot is irresponsible. The data rolling out of Israel appears to show it's not quite as effective as that for seniors, which makes sense both from the perspective of antibody titers and from the side effects (fever-like side effects suggest immune response). For both vaccines, both of these indicators are stronger for younger patients. Older patients really need that second shot. Maybe you can say for younger patients two weeks is good to go, but complex messaging turns into hash, and probably better to say the line is 7-days after the second dose, which is, after all, the vaccine study endpoint.
2. I think you overstate the Pfizer chart. While it's true that the protocol resulted in lots and lots of people being tested, there are likely missed completely asymptomatic people in both groups, and this means less than the 90%+ efficacy for suppression. The protocol practically required everyone with so much as a sniffle to get tested, but if the vaccine permits some people to culture the virus for a while but at a low asymptomatic level, this would be missed because the protocol wasn't set up to detect it. Or to put it another way: participants were not randomly selected to be swabbed, but only those with symptoms consistent with an infection; the protocol was not designed to look for how much of the iceberg was submerged.
Imagine a test of fire-retardant lumber where the evaluation occurs whenever the fire department was called and the endpoint is whether the insurance company deemed the structure a total loss and observing a dramatic reduction in total loses. And then concluding that fire-retardant lumber prevents *all* fires within dwellings. Well, no it doesn't--at least not to the same efficacy--because we simply didn't record kitchen fires and small fires remedied with a fire extinguisher. Telling people with fire-retardant lumber to throw out their fire extinguishers would be a mistake!
This is why people point instead to the Moderna study for the protective effect. The Moderna protocol tested everyone at the point of the second shot, and this showed a statistically significant difference, strongly suggestion complete suppression of the disease for some portion of the participants at some point after the first dose, but probably not as high as the 94% topline. And this makes sense--it makes sense that some people are not bulletproof immune, but have a sufficiently tuned-up immune response to keep the infection at a very low level.
3. All that said, I tend to agree that the message should be that the vaccines are hugely efficacious, and that once enough people have them, mask rules can fall aside. The real issue is that we already have people walking into Walmart and claiming to be a sovereign citizen or whatever, and a rule that post-vaccine and you're vine is unmanageable (either unenforceable if we go by people's say-so, or something Americans will viscerally reject, if we're talking about vaccine passports). I agree that public health should try to communicate this as adults and not through white lies and just say: we won't need masks once there's enough community immunity, but until then in public places it only works to have one rule for everyone.
4. I'd like to know how a double-blind study with masks can be performed.
5. Fun fact for the article you screenshot, Liz Szabo wrote the most widely-reprinted article in America last January about the virus. It has not aged well. https://khn.org/news/flu-far-deadlier-than-wuhan-virus/
(PS sorry for deleting and reposting. I wish comments could be edited.)
"I'd like to know how a double-blind study with masks can be performed" Obviously, with blindfolds
Oh, I didn't have a link handy for the Israel data earlier, but here's a nice read-out from one of Israel's four HMOs. Among people as old as Israel is immunizing (much older than the Moderna and Pfizer trials on average), the rates only ***start to diverge*** at 14 days, and you'd not really feel comfortable until after the second shot. https://twitter.com/segal_eran/status/1352696337477890049
Excellent. Thank you. I also almost lose my mind at how crazy our health care professionals have made so many people during this entire cluster you now what. I had an argument with a guy whgo said, of the vaccines, "but there's still a 5% chance of catching the disease, which isn't nil." OK, you've reduced the possibility by 95% of maybe (maybe not, not everyone would get this anyway) getting the disease, plus 80% of the people who do get it basically don't even know they do have it, plus of the people who do get it and aren't over 75 or really fat or have a few other known issues something like 99.7% survive. The odds of being struck by lkightening aren't much lower than the odds of dying of COVID after getting two shots of the vaccine. A bit of an exageration, I know.