Since you seem interested, knowledgable and respectful, I'd propose a "sidebar" with you. Perhaps even a cordial, documented, back and forth debate over a few months (I can post to a website). Especially if others would find it helpful so as to not continually clog up the WEZ as well.
'Gold Standard' Study Confirms COVID mRNA Vaccines Prevent Infection
The national study included more than 54,000 patients in the VA system, particularly important because that population has a large percentage of older patients with substantial comorbidities.www.medscape.com
Among 36,523 participants who had no evidence of existing or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection by the time of the immunizations, there were 170 cases of COVID-19 observed with onset at least 7 days after the second dose; 8 cases occurred in vaccine recipients, and 162 in placebo recipients, corresponding to 95.0% vaccine efficacy (95% credible interval [CI, 90.3, 97.6]). Among participants with and without evidence of prior SARS CoV-2 infection, there were 9 cases of COVID-19 among vaccine recipients and 169 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.6% vaccine efficacy (95% CI [89.9, 97.3]).Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Publication of Results from Landmark Phase 3 Trial of BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate in The New England Journal of Medicine | Pfizer
Data from 43,448 participants, half of whom received BNT162b2 and half of whom received placebo, showed that the vaccine candidate was well tolerated and demonstrated 95% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 in those without prior infection 7 days or more after the second dose Vaccine efficacy...www.pfizer.com
There are a few oddities with the data that you submitted and, partly, IMO, it reveals my issue with the entire thing. First off, lets look at the MedScape article you sent...which...on the surface...looks like REALLY good data. Here's the problem, once you look just one step deeper, it seems to me, that there is something afoot...
Let me try to explain, with the caveat, that I am certainly open to being corrected by evidence if you can find it from the initial Author(s). Their Methods included:
"We used a test-negative case–control design to evaluate the effectiveness of vaccination against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. This is a widely accepted design for determining vaccine effectiveness in a population after the introduction of a vaccine (15–17)."
Here's what that means according to #15 Reference (found here):
"Under the test-negative design for influenza VE, study subjects are all persons who seek care for an acute respiratory illness (ARI)."
What that means is that the testing is only done after presentation of symptoms that were bad enough to seek medical care. This certainly makes sense in a clinical setting; however, it DOES NOT go far to prove that the Vaccine is preventing actual Infection. Because, since the Vaccine DOES drive down observable/felt symptoms OF COVID, it is much less likely that those individuals, who are seeking ARI care, would be seeking the care because of Coronavirus Infection.
So, while the article seems to be a knock-down-drag-out argument, when you dig deeper, there's more to the story.
I would like to see overall data on "those who seek care for ARI" who have been Vaccinated for COVID vs Unvaccinated. That would be interesting.
Last edited:
