bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Can't open the article but I have read other sources that the "big" gap is @ 5%. However, wouldn't that be an argument for opening up a booster shot to more people? Maybe over 50 years old? I understand not wanting to rush to give to people under 30 - especially males.
Although again it is sad that probably the only reason we are having this conversation is because there are so many people who refuse to get vaccinated.
Relevant part of the article:
"Data collected from 18 states between March and August suggest the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine reduces the risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19 by 91% in the first four months after receiving the second dose. Beyond 120 days, however, that vaccine efficacy dropsto 77%.
Meanwhile, Moderna’s vaccine was 93% effective at reducing the short-term risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and remained 92% effective after 120 days."
Basically, after 4 months, Moderna is providing substantially better protection (and we saw this in the early trials as well, so this is not a surprise). Given how much more mRNA that the Moderna shot has in it, this is not surprising (antibody titers are usually "dose dependent).
Lot more than the "5% difference" you heard.
And no, I don't, nor have I ever, owned Moderna (or Pfizer) stock. I'm pretty much all in on TSLA.
EDIT - and this data is actually a strong argument AGAINST booster shots for those that got Moderna vaccines, while a reasonable argument can be made for boosters for those that got Pfizer, especially in "at risk" populations.