Where did the image you posted come from? Doesn’t appear to come from the document you linked to.
paper literally makes the case it’s not vaccine waning in the abstract churchill. You should read the things you cite.
Patterns of breakthrough infection over time were consistent by age, despite rolling vaccine eligibility, implicating the Delta variant as the primary determinant of infection.
This was a big red flag for me, as we know the vaccine is effective against delta at least in the beginning, and we should expect to see a dose/time relationship. That means this paper is a big outlier.
And behold:
https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1452324100140044295
That’s a big mistake. Come on buddy.
2 Likes
Posting the results of a VA study is antivax?
5 Likes
Findings support continued efforts to increase vaccination and an immediate, national return to additional layers of protection against infection
I know we’ve all gotta dunk on Churchill, and I know you specifically hate reading anything, but from page 7, first paragraph of “discussion”:
Our analysis of infection by vaccine type, including the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen vaccines, suggests waning vaccine protection against infection over time, particularly for the Janssen vaccine. These results demonstrate an urgent need to reinstate multiple layers of protection against infection, such as masking and physical distancing, while also bolstering current efforts to increase vaccination.
7 Likes
What’s up Jman?
3 Likes
I thought the image was easier reading than this from the report
Specifically, in March, protection against infection was: 88% (95% CI, 87% to 89%) for Janssen; 92% (95% CI, 92% to 93%) for Moderna; and 91% (95% CI, 91% to 92%) for Pfizer-BioNTech.
By August, protection against infection had declined to: 3% (95% CI, -7% to 12%) for Janssen; 64% (95% CI, 62%-66%) for Moderna; and 50% (95% CI, 47% to 52%) for Pfizer-BioNTech.
Seems the image creator erred on the positive side for March stats and was bang on for the August stats (if it were an anti-vaxx site we’d see J&J at -7%)
1 Like
It’s whatever you want it to be when you don’t like somebody!
Yes, I’m asking you who created the image. Where did you pull it from?
Cause it’s Youtoobz and everyone likes to dunk on Churchill
1 Like
Church, “where did you find this image you posted” seems like a question you would be able to answer if you were here in good faith. Maybe it’s a website with solid information that we could all benefit from?
The idea that either
A) increased community spread means increase breakthrough
And/or
B) breakthrough is more likely after some period of time after vaccination
It really doesn’t matter. Take a damn booster. Use the best available info to determine what booster to get.
It would be interesting to understand if former Covid positives (less careful in 2020 on average?) correlates with a selection of a single shot or non mRNA regime.
1 Like
You’re a big boy now, I’m sure you can assess the information on its own merits given you know the source, can’t you?
Please note that I said ‘in the abstract’
The paper does not make a compelling case whatsoever that this is related to fading vaccine response, and they found a relationship to the month of the year, not to time after the vaccine.
The paper also failed to do basic things like ‘make sure your control group doesn’t disproportionately have covid’, which makes it useless. Hope that helps you.
Oh and churchill, this paper is all over the antivaxx twitterverse now so I’m really wondering how you just happened to stumble upon it.
And to really smash home this point, this is from the paper. The unvaccinated group had 4x the amount of ‘last PCR test positive’ and I’m guessing the overall infection rate is even higher.
This is super important. At the end of their study, about 55% of the unvaccinated group was positive. That makes at least 65-70% of their sample positive in the unvaccinated side depending on their re-infection rate. That means about 80% of the unvaccinated, not previously infected group got covid. Roughly 65/82 or so, it would vary depending on rate of re-infection, so I’m estimating.
Meanwhile, 18% and 24% positive came back in the Pfizer group. Means that there was around some range of 4.5-2.5 to 1 risk here by my quick estimates, putting efficacy around 70-82%, which is in line with previous work.
Note that you can’t actually do what I do here, this is a quick and dirty look to get a rough idea. The point here is that not controlling for this is asinine.
1 Like