Thanks Helen, that is the point we were trying to make. If you recall we have explained why placebo arms of trials with limitations are the best observation platforms of what happened. It seems strange they kept reporting low incidence despite vague definitions, presence of other agents and very high sensitivity of PCR. Add the likelihood of contamination of specimens and what have you got?
Dear folks, thank you for your comments. The incidence in mid 2021 seemed very similar to the cumulative incidence in November 2020. We do not necessarily have a clear timeline as the trial was rolling I.e. recruiting more participants and adding more observations, as we described in the first posts of the series. However, the SARS-CoV-2 incidence is low especially if assessed against the great plague scenario that Chris mentioned and the vagueness of the case definitions.
We do not have “positions” or theories to put forward. We look at the evidence and try to interpret it. Knowledge accumulates slowly and we are running an update series of Comirnaty. Witch hunts are not our specialties. If we make mistakes we are happy to rectify our interpretation.
Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) published in the Lancet reports 'fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including fully vaccinated contacts.'" I'd be interested in what people think 95% refers to in the trials if subsequent studies reproted no difference in transmission rates.
I'll offer an answer. I think people (including sophisticated well-educated people) thought that 95 percent meant the vaccine provided almost complete protection against a dangerous disease. That they believed this is largely down to people in my profession (psychologist) willing to tell lies for what they considered the greater good. I'd apologise if I thought it would do any good.
‘ Covid was highly infectious we were told and running rampant and so anybody venturing out of doors might reasonably expect to be infected several times a week.’
Somehow that scenario just didn’t seem to chime with reality, for example staff absences from coronavirus infection were low though there were plenty of absences for other viruses, and local supermarket staff weren’t overwhelmed with infection either. Nursing homes were a different case, as we also see with circulating winter viruses in nursing homes.
I didn’t succumb to infection until the Omicron wave in Feb 2022 despite repeated clinical exposures over 2 years and daily face to face contact with multiple people ie not being locked down at work. And then there is Farr’s law and the challenge study in 2021 where despite the virus being sprayed directly into the noses of subjects only 6 out of 16 developed clinical infection.
I still do wonder about the selection of trial participants for PCR testing as the product side effect profile potentially unblinded people to whether they had received the real deal drug over placebo. I think we covered that topic way back at the beginning of the series. Somehow it never seemed to be as effective as claimed, though if rolled out between waves one could have been left with the impression of high efficacy against infection.
Geezers this supporter is struggling a bit with this one. I think my difficulties are fanning out from this: 'But in reality, when the table was assembled in November 2020, it showed more or less the same as the later table'. What later table? Am I just not seeing where you have inserted it? Is your point that covid prevalence seemed much the same in 2020 at the height of the epidemic as in 2021 when it should have dropped? If so what should we make of that?
Totally unclear about your message here apart from continuing the Pfizer witch-hunt, 95% was seen as an extraordinarily high number for a vaccine. So let us say for whatever reason that if the test was redone with a bigger sample or whatever it might have been 85%, it was still a high number. AZ I recall was struggling to demonstrate 76% and could not convince FDA to take a closer look even.
And then .."First, we assumed that 2% of people would be infected each week. " Well this is not the assumption of the general public at the time. Covid was highly infectious we were told and running rampant and so anybody venturing out of doors might reasonably expect to be infected several times a week. It looks like you make assumptions to make an argument and it still is not clear what evil was done!
It could be I am getting older, but you should not need so many words to make a case if you indeed have a case to make.
Thanks Helen, that is the point we were trying to make. If you recall we have explained why placebo arms of trials with limitations are the best observation platforms of what happened. It seems strange they kept reporting low incidence despite vague definitions, presence of other agents and very high sensitivity of PCR. Add the likelihood of contamination of specimens and what have you got?
Best, Tom.
Dear folks, thank you for your comments. The incidence in mid 2021 seemed very similar to the cumulative incidence in November 2020. We do not necessarily have a clear timeline as the trial was rolling I.e. recruiting more participants and adding more observations, as we described in the first posts of the series. However, the SARS-CoV-2 incidence is low especially if assessed against the great plague scenario that Chris mentioned and the vagueness of the case definitions.
We do not have “positions” or theories to put forward. We look at the evidence and try to interpret it. Knowledge accumulates slowly and we are running an update series of Comirnaty. Witch hunts are not our specialties. If we make mistakes we are happy to rectify our interpretation.
Keep commenting, Tom.
Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) published in the Lancet reports 'fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including fully vaccinated contacts.'" I'd be interested in what people think 95% refers to in the trials if subsequent studies reproted no difference in transmission rates.
see https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext
I'll offer an answer. I think people (including sophisticated well-educated people) thought that 95 percent meant the vaccine provided almost complete protection against a dangerous disease. That they believed this is largely down to people in my profession (psychologist) willing to tell lies for what they considered the greater good. I'd apologise if I thought it would do any good.
‘ Covid was highly infectious we were told and running rampant and so anybody venturing out of doors might reasonably expect to be infected several times a week.’
Somehow that scenario just didn’t seem to chime with reality, for example staff absences from coronavirus infection were low though there were plenty of absences for other viruses, and local supermarket staff weren’t overwhelmed with infection either. Nursing homes were a different case, as we also see with circulating winter viruses in nursing homes.
I didn’t succumb to infection until the Omicron wave in Feb 2022 despite repeated clinical exposures over 2 years and daily face to face contact with multiple people ie not being locked down at work. And then there is Farr’s law and the challenge study in 2021 where despite the virus being sprayed directly into the noses of subjects only 6 out of 16 developed clinical infection.
I still do wonder about the selection of trial participants for PCR testing as the product side effect profile potentially unblinded people to whether they had received the real deal drug over placebo. I think we covered that topic way back at the beginning of the series. Somehow it never seemed to be as effective as claimed, though if rolled out between waves one could have been left with the impression of high efficacy against infection.
Geezers this supporter is struggling a bit with this one. I think my difficulties are fanning out from this: 'But in reality, when the table was assembled in November 2020, it showed more or less the same as the later table'. What later table? Am I just not seeing where you have inserted it? Is your point that covid prevalence seemed much the same in 2020 at the height of the epidemic as in 2021 when it should have dropped? If so what should we make of that?
Totally unclear about your message here apart from continuing the Pfizer witch-hunt, 95% was seen as an extraordinarily high number for a vaccine. So let us say for whatever reason that if the test was redone with a bigger sample or whatever it might have been 85%, it was still a high number. AZ I recall was struggling to demonstrate 76% and could not convince FDA to take a closer look even.
And then .."First, we assumed that 2% of people would be infected each week. " Well this is not the assumption of the general public at the time. Covid was highly infectious we were told and running rampant and so anybody venturing out of doors might reasonably expect to be infected several times a week. It looks like you make assumptions to make an argument and it still is not clear what evil was done!
It could be I am getting older, but you should not need so many words to make a case if you indeed have a case to make.