Pfizer's efficacy rate? 0.84%. As in less than 1%
May 29, 2021 13:44:05 GMT -5
Post by schwartzie on May 29, 2021 13:44:05 GMT -5
Top-tier Medical Journal The Lancet blows lid off of "vaccine" lie. Pfizer's efficacy rate? 0.84%. As in less than 1%
As in, STATISTICALLY ZERO. In other words, these injections clearly have nothing to do with any CoronaVirus mitigation.
COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant
(not) in the room
Approximately 96 COVID-19 vaccines are at various
stages of clinical development.1
At present, we have the
interim results of four studies published in scientific
journals (on the Pfizer–BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA
vaccine,2
the Moderna–US National Institutes of
Health [NIH] mRNA-1273 vaccine,3
the AstraZeneca–
Oxford ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine,4
and the Gamaleya
GamCovidVac [Sputnik V] vaccine)5
and three studies
through the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) briefing documents (on the Pfizer–BioNTech,6
Moderna–NIH,7
and Johnson & Johnson [J&J] Ad26.
COV2.S vaccines).8
Furthermore, excerpts of these results
have been widely communicated and debated through
press releases and media, sometimes in misleading
ways.9
Although attention has focused on vaccine
efficacy and comparing the reduction of the number
of symptomatic cases, fully understanding the efficacy
and effectiveness of vaccines is less straightforward
than it might seem. Depending on how the effect size
is expressed, a quite different picture might emerge
(figure; appendix).
Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk
reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the
ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which
is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives
relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech,
94% for the Moderna–NIH, 90% for the Gamaleya,
67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford
vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the
background risk of being infected and becoming ill
with COVID-19, which varies between populations and
over time. Although the RRR considers only participants
who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk
reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack
rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole
population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give
a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for
the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH,
1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for
the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.
Continued at link
As in, STATISTICALLY ZERO. In other words, these injections clearly have nothing to do with any CoronaVirus mitigation.
COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant
(not) in the room
Approximately 96 COVID-19 vaccines are at various
stages of clinical development.1
At present, we have the
interim results of four studies published in scientific
journals (on the Pfizer–BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA
vaccine,2
the Moderna–US National Institutes of
Health [NIH] mRNA-1273 vaccine,3
the AstraZeneca–
Oxford ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine,4
and the Gamaleya
GamCovidVac [Sputnik V] vaccine)5
and three studies
through the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) briefing documents (on the Pfizer–BioNTech,6
Moderna–NIH,7
and Johnson & Johnson [J&J] Ad26.
COV2.S vaccines).8
Furthermore, excerpts of these results
have been widely communicated and debated through
press releases and media, sometimes in misleading
ways.9
Although attention has focused on vaccine
efficacy and comparing the reduction of the number
of symptomatic cases, fully understanding the efficacy
and effectiveness of vaccines is less straightforward
than it might seem. Depending on how the effect size
is expressed, a quite different picture might emerge
(figure; appendix).
Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk
reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the
ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which
is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives
relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech,
94% for the Moderna–NIH, 90% for the Gamaleya,
67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford
vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the
background risk of being infected and becoming ill
with COVID-19, which varies between populations and
over time. Although the RRR considers only participants
who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk
reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack
rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole
population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give
a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for
the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH,
1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for
the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.
Continued at link
