Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Gaps in Vaccine Protection mean we must continue to wear medical-grade masks & socially distance


Recommended Posts

Despite some claims that COVID vaccines supposedly protect us from serious COVID disease & hospitalization, there are proven gaps in the protection of all the COVID vaccines.  Remember, when Pfizer reports an "average 92%" efficacy of protection, there are ½ the patients who had less than 92% protection.

Note that the world's biggest study of Pfizer's vaccine by Israel's biggest healthcare provider, using 1.2 million patients, reported by the New England Journal of Medicine,  reported up to a 22% risk of "severe COVID disease" for Pfizer vaccinated patients   at 95% Confidence levels.


The Israeli study further reported that up to 45% of the Pfizer vaccinated patients with "severe COVID disease" required hospitalization.

ALL of the current vaccines have significant gaps in protection,  ranging from a 12% average gap in protection for Pfizer patients ...  a 16% average protection gap for Sinovac ... a 24% average gap for Oxford AstraZenica patients ... and an average 35% gap for JnJ.      This means we must keep wearing tight-fitting medical grade masks &   socially distancing   until COVID transmissions are choked off.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, snowyco said:

   Remember, when Pfizer reports an "average 92%" efficacy of protection, there are ½ the patients who had less than 92% protection.
 

That would only be true if Pfizer was reporting its efficacy as MEDIAN results (the number with 1/2 above, 1/2 below).  Average is the sum of a set of numbers divided by the total numbers.  

 

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bisbee Gal said:

That would only be true if Pfizer was reporting its efficacy as MEDIAN results (the number with 1/2 above, 1/2 below).  Average is the sum of a set of numbers divided by the total numbers.  

 

Please read the study results, focusing on the 95% Confidence Interval ranges.

Note the fun & revealing study results, like:  
" ...  for documented COVID infections ... 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95) "

The key is the 1.2 million patients in the study. ;)


The big 1.2 million patient Israeli study, from the New England Journal of Medicine reports as low as 88% protection for some people,  with a maximum of 95% protection of others - with an 'average' central value of 92% protection.

If you know scientific reporting, you realize that a range of 88% to 95% with an average of 92% efficacy ...  FOR OVER 1 MILLION patients ... is a symmetrical distribution that really does have as many values below the mean (average) as above the mean (to within less than 1% error).  Then notice how tightly centered the distribution is, around the mean,  with a Standard Deviation of just 1.5% ... on the mean of 92% ...    

That Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) of a tiny 1.6% ... says the distribution is symmetrical, with roughly equal numbers of values above & below the mean-average value. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bisbee Gal said:

I did read it, and I understand the significance between AVERAGE and MEDIAN.  The study is reporting AVERAGES and you vastly mis-represented what AVERAGE means in your original post.  

Think back to normal distributions and the Central Limit Theorem for very large data sets of over 1 million individuals.   You are quoting a High School level math oversimplified definition, which ignores what a 1.6% RSD means for a symmetrical normal distribution.

Readers can note that ALL Medians are "Average" values... just as ALL Means are "Average" values.

"Average" is the overall umbrella term, that literally means 'central value' or 'central tendency' ... which can be either a Mean or a Median.... With over 1 million patients, and a tiny 1.6% RSD, and a symmetrical 88% - 95% distribution, then half the patients got less than 92% average protection, and ½ the patients got more than 92% average protection.

Readers can also note that    the   up to 12% gap in "effective protection from COVID disease" for Pfizer vaccine is real - especially because it comes from a 1.2 million patient study ...  Which means   to stay safe,   we must keep wearing tight-fitting medical grade masks     and     socially distancing     for the months to come.

The 16% average gap in Sinovac protection,    average 24% gap in Oxford AstraZenica vaccine protection,   and average 34% gap in JnJ vaccine protection     means we get some protection from vaccines,    but we still need to keep masking-up & socially distancing.
Cheers!

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, snowyco said:

Readers can note that ALL Medians are "Average" values... just as ALL Means are "Average" values.

Readers can note????  What else shall us readers "note?"  When the first line of a post is inaccurate or complete bullshit, then readers should stop reading 🙃  

Medians are NOT averages.  You are asking readers to ignore your mis-representations.  And yes the difference between Median and Average IS high school math.  Some basics never change.  

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, lcscats said:

Note the AP and NYT sites have info on effectivness of the chinese vaccines.  This is from the chinese.  Effectivness is 50% according to both sites.  I wonder if the chinese fellow who told the press about  this is in trouble.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/12/world/coronavirus-newsletter-intl-04-12-21/index.html

China brings out its censors over vaccine critique
Gao's remarks were controversial in China and, as his comments gained traction on social media and international news platforms, Chinese censors quickly scrubbed discussions online. State media swiftly put out an interview with Gao to walk back his comments.

Global Times, a state-run nationalist tabloid, quoted Gao as saying reports about his admission were "a complete misunderstanding," and published new, toned-down remarks from Gao.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bisbee Gal said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/12/world/coronavirus-newsletter-intl-04-12-21/index.html

China brings out its censors over vaccine critique
Gao's remarks were controversial in China and, as his comments gained traction on social media and international news platforms, Chinese censors quickly scrubbed discussions online. State media swiftly put out an interview with Gao to walk back his comments.

Global Times, a state-run nationalist tabloid, quoted Gao as saying reports about his admission were "a complete misunderstanding," and published new, toned-down remarks from Gao.

Somehow I believe his original comments.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bisbee Gal said:

Readers can note????  What else shall us readers "note?"  When the first line of a post is inaccurate or complete bullshit, then readers should stop reading 🙃  

Medians are NOT averages.  You are asking readers to ignore your mis-representations.  And yes the difference between Median and Average IS high school math.  Some basics never change.  


By definition, Medians have alway been averages.

Read a basic dictionary:
"The median is another form of an average." 
https://www.dictionary.com/e/average-vs-mean-vs-median-vs-mode/#:~:text=What is the median%3F,when it's ordered by rank.

But that is not the point.   
The minor point, Bisbeegal,    is that when human data sets are very large (like the Israeli data for over 1 million patients), and when they are normal distributions, then, with 95% Confidence:   ½ the people in the big study have results below the "Average" (arithmatic mean) and ½ the people in the big study have results above the "Average".

The bigger point is that the Pfizer vaccine has gaps in protection up to 12% being unprotected.
Cheers!

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lcscats said:

Note the AP and NYT sites have info on effectivness of the chinese vaccines.  This is from the chinese.  Effectivness is 50% according to both sites.  I wonder if the chinese fellow who told the press about  this is in trouble.


Note the "50% efficacy " research report that the NY Times quotes & that the AP site quotes HAS ONLY 88 TOTAL PATIENTS in the Treatment Group (vaccinated patients) with COVID ... and just 175 TOTAL PATIENTS in the Control Group (unvaccinated patients) with COVID.

No good scientist anywhere     trusts      tiny-study results     that have just 88 Treatment (vaccinated) patients  ... and 175 Control (unvaccinated) patients in their study    from Brazil.

The "50% "  report is scientifically invalid ... and medically invalid ... because the study was so small.

The bigger 10,000 patient Sinovac study   showed 84% protection.
Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said, Remember, when Pfizer reports an "average 92%" efficacy of protection, there are ½ the patients who had less than 92% protection.

An average is determined by adding the string of numbers, then dividing that total by the number of numbers in the string. 

Example, in a string of 10 numbers, 9 of them are 100 and 1 of them is 50.  The AVERAGE is 95 (950 divided by 10).

How many of these numbers are below the average of 95? 

ONE.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, snowyco said:


Note the "50% efficacy " research report that the NY Times quotes & that the AP site quotes HAS ONLY 88 TOTAL PATIENTS in the Treatment Group (vaccinated patients) with COVID ... and just 175 TOTAL PATIENTS in the Control Group (unvaccinated patients) with COVID.

No good scientist anywhere     trusts      tiny-study results     that have just 88 Treatment (vaccinated) patients  ... and 175 Control (unvaccinated) patients in their study    from Brazil.

The "50% "  report is scientifically invalid ... and medically invalid ... because the study was so small.

The bigger 10,000 patient Sinovac study   showed 84% protection.
Cheers!

I can't find the 10,000 person study.  I can find two earlier ones and they were hard to find.  Does anybody actually know where this study is??  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, lcscats said:

I can't find the 10,000 person study.  I can find two earlier ones and they were hard to find.  Does anybody actually know where this study is??  



Here's the Brazilians "10,000 person study", that has only 85 vaccinated patients in the key COVID Treatment group used to calculate the Sinovac's %Efficacy ... and just 168 unvaccinated patients in the key Control COVID group used to report Sinovac's %Efficacy report of"50.7%" Efficacy.

https://static.poder360.com.br/2021/04/estudo-preliminar-coronavac-11.abr_.2021.pdf

Compare that way-too-small Brazilian study with just 86 vaccinated patients used to report %Efficacy,    versus the larger Sinovac trials in Turkey that got 84% Efficacy for Sinovac's "Coronavac".

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-turkey-sinovac-int-idUSKBN2AV18P
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...