Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are 95% effective. That means that 5% of the people who get them, can still get Covid. Washington and other states are proving that now.
What we're hoping for, is that the 5% who can still get Covid, will only be able to get it from the rest of the 5%, instead of from 100% like a year ago. And most of those 5% still haven't caught Covid, so can't transmit it to the few other 5%ers they come in contact with. The virus won't find enough people it can jump around to, and so eventually dies out.
Worked for polio.
Again like in the discussion in the other thread, no they're not. You keep tossing around this 95% number like it's automatic but there are a whole lot of asterisks to it. It's a relative effectiveness not an absolute one, most of the claim is based on a symptom reduction that went from already mild to slightly more mild. It doesn't tell us much about protection for people who'd get serious cases because as we learned recently, the Pfizer and Moderna trials underrepresented vulnerable populations, which is the most important population to be tested in such trials anyway. Maybe it reduces symptoms some in severe hospitalized cases which would technically count as "being effective" but if it's minimal symptom reduction, that's useless in practice. We also don't know how long that protection supposedly lasts, what's the percentage effective a month after getting the shots? 2 months? Our doctor said it's probably way below 95 percent, and the hospitals are seeing more vaccinated patients come in with severe COVID as they go farther out from getting their shots. What about individual variation in response? What about the newer mutants that even the main vaccine labs have found are far less sensitive to the antibodies the vaccines make? I wouldn't say the 95% number is nonsense, but more and more it's becoming clear it's very misleading.
It's almost as if people don't comprehend what 76%, 90%, and 96% effective mean.
So .01% of fully vaxxed people got COVID? What a total non-story and a waste of time. Come back when you actually have interesting and statistically meaningful news that we didn't know already. Good Lord.
Again like in the discussion in the other thread, no they're not. You keep tossing around this 95% number like it's automatic but there are a whole lot of asterisks to it. It's a relative effectiveness not an absolute one, most of the claim is based on a symptom reduction that went from already mild to slightly more mild. It doesn't tell us much about protection for people who'd get serious cases because as we learned recently, the Pfizer and Moderna trials underrepresented vulnerable populations, which is the most important population to be tested in such trials anyway. Maybe it reduces symptoms some in severe hospitalized cases which would technically count as "being effective" but if it's minimal symptom reduction, that's useless in practice. We also don't know how long that protection supposedly lasts, what's the percentage effective a month after getting the shots? 2 months? Our doctor said it's probably way below 95 percent, and the hospitals are seeing more vaccinated patients come in with severe COVID as they go farther out from getting their shots. What about individual variation in response? What about the newer mutants that even the main vaccine labs have found are far less sensitive to the antibodies the vaccines make? I wouldn't say the 95% number is nonsense, but more and more it's becoming clear it's very misleading.
No, it is not misleading. You just do not understand what it means, which is that you are 19 times more likely to get infected with the virus if you are not vaccinated.
Current info is that the vaccines reduce asymptomatic infections, too, so there go those people who were not going to get sick.
What is your source for "hospitals are seeing more vaccinated patients come in with severe COVID as they go farther out from getting their shots"?
At least one RN has posted here on CD that all the patients her hospital is seeing in its ICU with COVID-19 are unvaccinated.
This is out of 1.2 million people, and did any of those 100 people die?
The biggest risk in this scenario are people who aren't vaccinated who have a double whammy in having much better odds in getting the virus and more uncertainty as to whether they will get an asymptomatic or very mild infection or one that kills them or debilitates them long term. It's even riskier for the unvaccinated person who isn't wearing a mask, observing physical distancing, and good hand washing hygiene.
At least 2 died of that group, some were hospitalized and most had mild infections, but again we see same pattern in the unvaccinated, almost everyone has mild infections more than 99% survive getting infected, with most asymptomatic. It's hard to make comparisons unless we have the same kind of data on the unvaccinated in Washington state and the articles don't provide that in detail, Washington state if I recall has something like 7 million population total and without more exact numbers, reports have still been clear that among the 6 million not vaccinated in that same period, the COVID infection rate was also very low with few in the hospital-- WA has had the infection under tight control in general so how do we figure correlation vs. causation? How distinguish between effects of the vaccine vs. tight restrictions, masking and lockdowns? It's hard to do and even then, we don't even know if those numbers represent the total number of vaccinated with infections. In Texas for example reporting is done at county level and they all have different policies, some will report infections with some mention of vaccination status, but most will not. So for ex. if we have a group of 300 infections in several Texas counties and it's reported that 100 of them had both vaccines, we can't assume that the other 200 were unvaccinated. It could be that they didn't get the vaccine. Or it could be that some of them did get the vaccine, but the vaccine status was not reported with the report of infections.
Which is 100 / 1,200,000, or 1 out of 12,000. There's always going to be this one-twelve-thousandth unluckiest people in even most rural counties. BTW, the parish I grew up in was just under that population during my high school days.
Right, but same can be said for COVID infections in general, vaccinated or not. Before vaccines were available only a tiny percentage of people who got COVID died from it, and large majority of them had other serious conditions too. In the latest CDC data in fact they were saying close to 95 percent of COVID deaths in the US involved people with other conditions, so again the question of people dying of COVID versus with it. And even then with the low percentage, that group can be said to have been just very unlucky. The number above does show a low percentage of vaccinated getting sick during this short period but again, we can't make any conclusions from that without having comparison data. For Washington state with a pop. of close to 7 million, close to 6 million were not vaccinated and from what we've been hearing from the state, it's been having very low COVID levels for everyone, so we'd probably get a similar very low percentage of sick people among the unvaccinated, maybe one in a few thousand. And even then there questions about the data we're looking at, the Washington state health dept. only said they could determine the vaccination status of that group that got COVID, the converse statement isn't necessarily true, ie. we don't know if other COVID cases outside that group were not vaccinated since it depends on how the hospitals report. In Texas and a lot of other states, the reporting is very uneven so some clinics will report vaccine status with a COVID infection, some don't. We'd need to have some serious inspecting and quality control of that data before concluding anything.
That means that 5% of the people who get them, can still get Covid.
That is absolutely NOT what it means - and if you still think that, please stop posting an opinion that someone else might stumble onto and take as The Truth. It means no such thing.
Suzy_Q nailed it quite simply: Non-vaccinated will catch it at 19x the rate of vaccinated.
Note that this does not imply that 5% will get sick, or 1% or 99%. Nope.
But the numbers out of Washington match quite well with the expected situation, and are (so far) actually better.
Meantime - to continue focusing on "from covid" or "with it" is to miss the point. You are JUST AS DEAD "with it" and you would have (probably) been alive without it. Excess deaths proves this with no doubt remaining. None at all.
No, it is not misleading. You just do not understand what it means, which is that you are 19 times more likely to get infected with the virus if you are not vaccinated.
Current info is that the vaccines reduce asymptomatic infections, too, so there go those people who were not going to get sick.
What is your source for "hospitals are seeing more vaccinated patients come in with severe COVID as they go farther out from getting their shots"?
At least one RN has posted here on CD that all the patients her hospital is seeing in its ICU with COVID-19 are unvaccinated.
Stats please. When were they admitted? Is the vaccine widely available in that area? Were those in the ICU eligible for the vaccine? Did the RN read every single chart of every patient?
Why do you believe this poster but not the posters who say they have children injured by vaccines?
Um, if you're asymptomatic, you aren't sick. So the vaccine doesn't matter.
Stats please. When were they admitted? Is the vaccine widely available in that area? Were those in the ICU eligible for the vaccine? Did the RN read every single chart of every patient?
Why do you believe this poster but not the posters who say they have children injured by vaccines?
Um, if you're asymptomatic, you aren't sick. So the vaccine doesn't matter.
Agree, and we've been hearing from our doctors. The whole reason we've been going onto these forums is that even our doctors have been unsure about effectiveness, but lately they're seeing even a lot of vaccinated patients come into their hospitals and ICU's. The vaccines do seem to provide very strong protection for about a month or so, as it sounds like they've seen almost none come in that month after the second shot. But after that, their immunity seems to get weaker, for ex. late in March one of our doctors was saying she'd starting seeing more and more patients come in who'd gotten the shot in early February, and a whole lot more going to the hospital who'd gotten both shots in January. That seems to be in agreement with what's been getting reported in some of the news links, with a fall in the immunity after a month or two. Or it could also have something to do with the mutants. This early, it's still hard to tell.
Agree, and we've been hearing from our doctors. The whole reason we've been going onto these forums is that even our doctors have been unsure about effectiveness, but lately they're seeing even a lot of vaccinated patients come into their hospitals and ICU's. The vaccines do seem to provide very strong protection for about a month or so, as it sounds like they've seen almost none come in that month after the second shot. But after that, their immunity seems to get weaker, for ex. late in March one of our doctors was saying she'd starting seeing more and more patients come in who'd gotten the shot in early February, and a whole lot more going to the hospital who'd gotten both shots in January. That seems to be in agreement with what's been getting reported in some of the news links, with a fall in the immunity after a month or two. Or it could also have something to do with the mutants. This early, it's still hard to tell.
Sorry, your story does not jibe with what the data show.
"The ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial of Pfizer/BioNTech's coronavirus vaccine confirms its protection remains high for at least six months after the second dose, the companies said Thursday.
Protection likely lasts even longer than that, vaccine experts say, but they say having data showing good protection six months after people were vaccinated is good news."
"Dr. Scott Hensley, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied mRNA vaccines like Pfizer's and Moderna's for years, says the strong protection after six months means the vaccines are likely to protect people for even longer -- years, possibly.
"The vaccine elicits such high levels of antibodies that even when confronted with a variant ... there's still meaningful protection," Hensley told CNN."
"'In South Africa, where the B.1.351 lineage is prevalent and 800 participants were enrolled, nine cases of COVID-19 were observed, all in the placebo group, indicating vaccine efficacy of 100%', the company said."
LOL. this is a non story. The vaccine is not 100% effective. We knew this.
. What I've also read, is that there's no claim that the vaccines prevent getting the disease. What they vaccine manufacturers say, is that they prevent severe cases.
Also, the latest reports are that the Pfizer and J & J vaccine trials are showing, that effectiveness remains strong past the 6 month mark. They continue to monitor their trial subjects as time goes by.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
