Nobody Is Laughing At the Russian And Chinese Vaccines Now

[cdemundo]

On 2/8/2021 at 8:42 AM, rabas said:

I should take a vaccine that basically doesn't work, relative to all others, just because China mass produces aspirin and other chemicals?

The worst performance of Chinese vaccines that I have seen is efficacy ~ 50%.

That means the chance of becoming ill from COVID 19 is reduced by half.

What it does not mean is that you have a coin flip chance of getting ill.

As you say, other vaccines are estimated to perform much better but it is not the case that a vaccine with 50% efficacy doesn't work.  I have been lucky enough to get vaccinated with 2 doses of Moderna, but I would take any vaccine available to reduce my chances of getting sick with this disease.

 

Any considerations other than reducing my risk of getting sick seem insignificant to me.

 

 

[bartender100]

One small <deleted> for a man, one giant needle for mankind

 

Had mine today in the UK, so well-organised, in and out in 10 minutes. The Oxford one 

[Peter Denis]

6 hours ago, cdemundo said:

...

Any considerations other than reducing my risk of getting sick seem insignificant to me.

That's the spirit!  ????

[rabas]

7 hours ago, cdemundo said:

The worst performance of Chinese vaccines that I have seen is efficacy ~ 50%.

That means the chance of becoming ill from COVID 19 is reduced by half.

What it does not mean is that you have a coin flip chance of getting ill.

As you say, other vaccines are estimated to perform much better but it is not the case that a vaccine with 50% efficacy doesn't work.  I have been lucky enough to get vaccinated with 2 doses of Moderna, but I would take any vaccine available to reduce my chances of getting sick with this disease.

 

Any considerations other than reducing my risk of getting sick seem insignificant to me.

Moderna, now I'm jealous! But good for you.

 

I don't suggest the Chinese vaccine is nothing.  However it is a coin flip given a tail wind on a good day. Let's say I have the Chinese 50% one. Sufficiently exposed to be infected, my chance of getting it is roughly 1 in 2, Yours is 1/20. (50% vs 95%). I can sleep well with 1/20.

 

But that's with older, less aggressive strains. It is unlikely to continue at 50%. Below is a chart of the major stains over time as a percentage of cases.  The 50% was measured in the middle of the chart. More recent indications suggest it may not be effective against the latest mutations.

 

1. Dark gray, original virus as it arose/escaped.

2. Green/gray, Early L, S mutation split.

  - mild green S spread through China.

  - aggressive gray L ravaged Wuhan.

3. Red/Orange, very aggressive 'G' strains travel to the West, from China (Wuhan?)

4. Black hatches: 'G' strains on steroids. UK/South Africa/Brazil P.1

 

Note: +RBDx means additional worrysome 'spike' mutations.

 

Graph from GISAID.

Edited February 14, 2021 by rabas

[Heng]

Not sure if you can attribute it to their vaccines or not (state control and cultural/family centrism also helps) but China does pretty much have their economy up and running again.   Slightly effective vaccines probably help.   

[cdemundo]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

Sufficiently exposed to be infected, my chance of getting it is roughly 1 in 2,

That is not what efficacy means.  It is not a measure of probability of infection.

It is a comparison of the number of cases of illness in the vaccination group of phase 3 trials versus the numbers of cases of illness in the placebo group.

That is all it indicates. 

It does not indicate your chance of getting sick if exposed.

A 50% efficacy means for example if 100 individuals in the placebo group became ill in the phase 3 trial, that only 50 individuals in the vaccinated group got sick.

It tells you what your reduction of chance is relative to the unvaccinated.

It does not tell you what your absolute chance of getting sick is.

 

[Peter Denis]

46 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

That is not what efficacy means.  It is not a measure of probability of infection.

It is a comparison of the number of cases of illness in the vaccination group of phase 3 trials versus the numbers of cases of illness in the placebo group.

That is all it indicates. 

It does not indicate your chance of getting sick if exposed.

A 50% efficacy means for example if 100 individuals in the placebo group became ill in the phase 3 trial, that only 50 individuals in the vaccinated group got sick.

It tells you what your reduction of chance is relative to the unvaccinated.

It does not tell you what your absolute chance of getting sick is.

From what I read the vaccine only reduces the severity of the symptoms when you catch covid-19.

A 50% effectiveness of the vaccine, means that if you get covid-19 in virtual covid-free Thailand - let's grossly exaggerate the risk of that occurence and put that at 1 in 50 - that the symptoms would not be as severe > it does not mean that your chance of getting it is reduced from 1 in 50 to 1 in 100.  Also, you would be less infectious if you get it, but it's not that you are free of spreading it.

Under those circumstances I don't really understand the enthusiasm to 'get the jab'. 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Peter Denis

[rabas]

16 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

That is not what efficacy means.  It is not a measure of probability of infection.

It is a comparison of the number of cases of illness in the vaccination group of phase 3 trials versus the numbers of cases of illness in the placebo group.

That is all it indicates. 

It does not indicate your chance of getting sick if exposed.

A 50% efficacy means for example if 100 individuals in the placebo group became ill in the phase 3 trial, that only 50 individuals in the vaccinated group got sick.

It tells you what your reduction of chance is relative to the unvaccinated.

It does not tell you what your absolute chance of getting sick is.

 

You will notice that I use the word effective. Effectiveness is the word used for a vaccine in real-world use, which was my topic. The term efficacy is used for trials.

 

I also did not talk about the 'chance of getting sick', I removed it from the math when I said:

 

Sufficiently exposed to be infected, my chance of getting it is roughly 1 in 2, Yours is 1/20. (50% vs 95%).

 

Which is correct. 'Chance of getting sick' is removed in a trial by selecting those who got sick.  I think it's a bit misleading  to consider 'chance of getting sick' when comparing vaccines. It's reasonable to consider as a personal issue.

[mommysboy]

10 hours ago, cdemundo said:

The worst performance of Chinese vaccines that I have seen is efficacy ~ 50%.

That means the chance of becoming ill from COVID 19 is reduced by half.

What it does not mean is that you have a coin flip chance of getting ill.

As you say, other vaccines are estimated to perform much better but it is not the case that a vaccine with 50% efficacy doesn't work.  I have been lucky enough to get vaccinated with 2 doses of Moderna, but I would take any vaccine available to reduce my chances of getting sick with this disease.

 

Any considerations other than reducing my risk of getting sick seem insignificant to me.

 

 

 

Most of these vaccines provide  100% efficacy against hospitalization/death in an otherwise healthy person.

[cdemundo]

55 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

From what I read the vaccine only reduces the severity of the symptoms when you catch covid-19.

A 50% effectiveness of the vaccine, means that if you get covid-19 in virtual covid-free Thailand - let's grossly exaggerate the risk of that occurence and put that at 1 in 50 - that the symptoms would not be as severe > it does not mean that your chance of getting it is reduced from 1 in 50 to 1 in 100.  Also, you would be less infectious if you get it, but it's not that you are free of spreading it.fficacy

Under those circumstances I don't really understand the enthusiasm to 'get the jab'. 

 

The only numbers that I have seen published on the vaccines are the "efficacy" numbers from the phase 3 trials.

A lot of people use those numbers to mean what ever they want them to mean.

If you read the Moderna summary of the phase 3 trials that they performed you will see that the efficacy numbers are exactly referring to coming down with symptomatic Covid 19 versus not.

It means that the number of individuals in the vaccine group that became symptomatic with COVID 19 was 6% of the number that became sick in the vaccine group. Hence 94% efficacy, if zero persons became sick it would have been 100% efficacy.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say " it does not mean that your chance of getting it is reduced from 1 in 50 to 1 in 100".  The numbers don't refer to your absolute chance of getting sick, they refer to the chance of an unvaccinated person getting sick relative to a vaccinated person as observed in the trial.

You obviously have not looked at the method of the phase three trial.  It's easy fo find, Moderna has a summary of the trial on their website.

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by darksidedog
Unnecessary comment edited.

[shdmn]

18 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Most of these vaccines provide  100% efficacy against hospitalization/death in an otherwise healthy person.

That's the bottom line.  I would take any of them at this point.  All I care about is staying out of the hospital.  I can live with getting the sniffles for a few days.

Edited February 14, 2021 by shdmn

[cdemundo]

19 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Most of these vaccines provide  100% efficacy against hospitalization/death in an otherwise healthy person.

Where do you get that figure?

 

[mommysboy]

31 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

Where do you get that figure?

 

 

All the studies, every single one of them, so far.

 

[Dagfinnur Traustason]

On 2/6/2021 at 7:11 AM, tomazbodner said:

Russia just expelled Swedish, German and Polish I think diplomats for being part of the protests against Russian government. So you protest against government then ask that same government to help you with vaccines? Interesting ways EU has in operating and coordinating efforts.

It´s called the world of politics.

[cdemundo]

26 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

All the studies, every single one of them, so far.

 

Name one, give a reference.  I have not seen anything like that.  

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/peer-reviewed-report-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-publishes

 

"Peer-reviewed report on Moderna COVID-19 vaccine publishes

Data from Phase 3 clinical trial confirm vaccine is effective...

The investigational vaccine known as mRNA-1273 was 94.1% efficacious in preventing symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), according to preliminary results from a Phase 3 clinical trial reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. "

 

There is one, quoted and referenced that shows 94.1% efficacy.

So that is to enough indicate that your information is wrong.

Again, give me one reference that states 100%, should be easy since "every single one of them" says so.

[FarFlungFalang]

3 hours ago, Heng said:

Not sure if you can attribute it to their vaccines or not (state control and cultural/family centrism also helps) but China does pretty much have their economy up and running again.   Slightly effective vaccines probably help.   

I wonder what's been helping India's numbers that have been falling dramatically since September way before any vaccine?

Edited February 14, 2021 by FarFlungFalang

[cdemundo]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

 

Most of these vaccines provide  100% efficacy against hospitalization/death in an otherwise healthy person.

I was too quick to argue, I see you are saying protection against hospitalization/death, I have only read studies that measured the efficacy against symptomatic disease.

Can you refer me to a study of this question, it is a separate question from what the phase 3 studies measured.

[mommysboy]

9 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

I was too quick to argue, I see you are saying protection against hospitalization/death, I have only read studies that measured the efficacy against symptomatic disease.

Can you refer me to a study of this question, it is a separate question from what the phase 3 studies measured.

 

No, nearly all studies produce 3 measures, and phase 3 trials record the number of serious cases and even deaths. Just read the Astrazeneca Lancet study. 

 

Actually hospitalisations and deaths are absolute, whereas the efficacy can be measured in different ways, eg, the J and J vaccine quotes against moderate symptomatic infection. Some studies also rely on self reporting only.

Edited February 14, 2021 by mommysboy

[cdemundo]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

 

Most of these vaccines provide  100% efficacy against hospitalization/death in an otherwise healthy person.

I see that you are I right.  I was wrong to doubt you. 

 

[Bkk Brian]

33 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

Name one, give a reference.  I have not seen anything like that.  

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/peer-reviewed-report-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-publishes

 

"Peer-reviewed report on Moderna COVID-19 vaccine publishes

Data from Phase 3 clinical trial confirm vaccine is effective...

The investigational vaccine known as mRNA-1273 was 94.1% efficacious in preventing symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), according to preliminary results from a Phase 3 clinical trial reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. "

 

There is one, quoted and referenced that shows 94.1% efficacy.

So that is to enough indicate that your information is wrong.

Again, give me one reference that states 100%, should be easy since "every single one of them" says so.

If you read all the scientific studies on phase 3 trials, which is a long and tedious task you will discover that anybody who caught Covid-19 after taking the vaccines, any one of the vaccines, did not require hospitalization or died. Summary below:

 

Take whatever COVID vaccine you can get. All of them stop death and hospitalization 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/02/12/all-covid-vaccines-stop-death-severe-illness-column/6709455002/

 

 

[cdemundo]

15 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

No, nearly all studies produce 3 measures, and phase 3 trials record the number of serious cases and even deaths. Just read the Astrazeneca Lancet study. 

 

Actually hospitalisations and deaths are absolute, whereas the efficacy can be measured in different ways, eg, the J and J vaccine quotes against moderate symptomatic infection. Some studies also rely on self reporting only.

You are right and as the articles state protection against serious illness and death is actually more important than comparing whether or not a person got symptomatic disease.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/02/12/all-covid-vaccines-stop-death-severe-illness-column/6709455002/

"All seven COVID-19 vaccines that have completed large efficacy trials — Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, AstraZeneca, Sputnik V and Sinovac — appear to be 100% effective for serious complications. Not one vaccinated person has gotten sick enough to require hospitalization. Not a single vaccinated person has died of COVID-19."

 

[Bkk Brian]

24 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

You are right and as the articles state protection against serious illness and death is actually more important than comparing whether or not a person got symptomatic disease.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/02/12/all-covid-vaccines-stop-death-severe-illness-column/6709455002/

"All seven COVID-19 vaccines that have completed large efficacy trials — Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, AstraZeneca, Sputnik V and Sinovac — appear to be 100% effective for serious complications. Not one vaccinated person has gotten sick enough to require hospitalization. Not a single vaccinated person has died of COVID-19."

 

Of course we need to be aware that this was from studies with thousands of people but not real world and with the new variants developing quickly its likely that out of the millions of vaccines given there will be some deaths after infection.

[Moncul]

On 2/6/2021 at 3:29 PM, Pattaya Spotter said:

China early and quickly brought the virus spread under control in their country...don't blame them for the failures of other govts to do the same.

 

Yes, by hiding the spread of the infection and sneakily buying up all the PPE they could find for themselves, leaving the rest of the world exposed.

[Moncul]

On 2/14/2021 at 9:21 AM, Bkk Brian said:

Take whatever COVID vaccine you can get. All of them stop death and hospitalization 

 

 

And not just yours ????

[Pattaya Spotter]

On 2/20/2021 at 12:22 AM, Moncul said:

 

Yes, by hiding the spread of the infection and sneakily buying up all the PPE they could find for themselves, leaving the rest of the world exposed.

You mean "sneakily" buying up all the PPE they make in their own country...yeah that's basically how the world works. Kinda like all the advanced Western countries have sneakily bought up all the vaccine supplies for the next year leaving the rest of the world, including Thailand, high and dry.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

You mean "sneakily" buying up all the PPE they make in their own country...yeah that's basically how the world works. Kinda like all the advanced Western countries have sneakily bought up all the vaccine supplies for the next year leaving the rest of the world, including Thailand, high and dry.

Anyway, Trump could have and should have invoked the Defense Production Act to American compel companies to produce PPE. There were a few exceptions, but basically he refused to do so.

[Wuvu2]

Untrue - I'm still laughing my ass off ????

[mommysboy]

On 2/14/2021 at 1:48 PM, Bkk Brian said:

Of course we need to be aware that this was from studies with thousands of people but not real world and with the new variants developing quickly its likely that out of the millions of vaccines given there will be some deaths after infection.

 

Yes in the real world it's just not going to be possible for vaccines to be 100% protective, however real world data from UK show that both Pfizer and AZ vaccines have been spectacularly effective in all aspects.

 

You are absolutely right to raise concerns about variants imo.

[cormanr7]

3 hours ago, mommysboy said:

You are absolutely right to raise concerns about variants imo

By now, the variants from the UK (B.1.1.7), Brazil (P.1) and South Africa (B.1.357) are well known. However, there are plenty of others, for instance the Californian variant that comes in two flavours (B.1.427 and 429) and by now is widespread  https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/02/coronavirus-strain-first-identified-california-may-be-more-infectious-and-cause-more. The New York variant (B.1.526) has also attracted attention https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/27/new-york-city-covid-variant-experts. The latter article also point to tensions between city officials and scientists, tied to the low incidence of genome sequencing in the US vs, for instance, the UK.  

[stament]

OP whilst the UK have made a total mess of most things related to Covid they are doing well with their roll-out vaccination programme, much better than China and Russia I would suggest. Things change....