2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Nonsense

A funny joke by a famous comedian... of course it is nonsense... do you have not 1% humor in you? You are missing out... sure. 

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

Except for the small fact that the hospitals are being forced to turn patients away or and medical workers are exhausted from overwork. So it's not just folks afflicted with covid who suffer.

Who is asking all these people to go to hospital?  Personally if I thought I had Covid I would stay put at home and ride it out.  The medical system is way overrated.  Go to the hospital and die vs stay at home and die.  Either way you are dead.

Can Pfizer tell if a person has contracted the virus through observation alone? Aren't there many asymptomatic or very mild infections?  Isn't testing necessary to determine if a person is infected or not?  

2 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

Can Pfizer tell if a person has contracted the virus through observation alone? Aren't there many asymptomatic or very mild infections?  Isn't testing necessary to determine if a person is infected or not?  

Currently, about 25% of all cases are asymptomatic, never getting classical symptoms.  Because Pfizer's trial is so large, they decided not to perform weekly testing on all participants as done by Astrazenica/Oxford.  Rather, they will later test all participants for antibody/antigen presence to detect any other cases. These trials are still running.

 

In that sense Pfizer will be able to identify all cases. They did not state those numbers in their initial press announcement. I don't think there is any reason to suspect Pfizer's vaccine would be less effective on asymptomatic cases than Oxford's, it would likely be more effective.

If a person gets an asymptomatic infection, then the vaccine was not effective for that person.  It would have been effecatious in preventing severe symptoms, but not effective in immunizing the person.  People seem to be confused and assume that Pfizer's claimed effectiveness describes the number of vaccinated people who would not become infected.  That is clearly not the case.  This is the reason why a vaccination certificate will not certify that a person is protected from being infected and thus able to enter a country without undergoing quarantine.  

It is currently unknown to what extent the Pfizer vaccine prevents infection, only that ti is about 95% effective in preventing symptomatic disease.

None of the vaccines produce 'sterilizing' antibodies and should not be expected to do anything other than reduce serious illness/death, as with the influenza jab.  In this regard, they all appear to be admirable, with figures of near 100%.  Surely this is the most important criterion?

 

Nobody knows whether asymptomatic infection is a fact- it could refer to 'transitioning', where a person first starts to become actively infected.  

 

I do have a dog in the race, the Oxford vaccine, because I am a Brit- and if everyone was so frank then we might not have to rely on dishonorable argument to express our preferences.  I think it's fair to say that the vector vaccines are much more suitable for mass deployment, and can be considered a 'known quantity' regarding safety. 

 

Anyway, it's very likely there will be only 3 or 4 vaccines likely to be available, and that is not going to be enough to cover the whole world even at full production capabilities.  You go with what you've got- even 40% of something, would be better than 100% of nothing.  I mention 40% because sometimes that is all the flu vaccine offers, yet it still does a good job.