Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Coronavirus

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
so I'm not sure what to make of these results.

Just looked at the table again. (Really bothered by this 77% Pfizer hospitalization efficacy number, lol.).

Basically, the summary is that in a group of vaccinated people, where half of them were hospitalized at least once in the past year, compared to an unvaccinated group where 36% of them were hospitalized at least once in the prior year, Pfizer showed less resilience against hospitalization than Moderna. Amongst other caveats.

In any case, because of that characteristic of the population, amongst others, I don't think this 77% efficacy number can be extended to the broader population. Seems likely that efficacy against hospitalization is still currently above 95% for both mRNA vaccines for the general population, though efficacy against infection is likely considerably lower for Pfizer based on available (limited) data.
 
Just looked at the table again. (Really bothered by this 77% Pfizer hospitalization efficacy number, lol.).

Basically, the summary is that in a group of vaccinated people, where half of them were hospitalized at least once in the past year, compared to an unvaccinated group where 36% of them were hospitalized at least once in the prior year, Pfizer showed less resilience against hospitalization than Moderna. Amongst other caveats.

In any case, because of that characteristic of the population, amongst others, I don't think this 77% efficacy number can be extended to the broader population. Seems likely that efficacy against hospitalization is still currently above 95% for both mRNA vaccines for the general population, though efficacy against infection is likely considerably lower for Pfizer based on available (limited) data.

I don't agree with your interpretation. Their analysis of the data was performed per standards consistent with clinical data for efficacy determination (i.e. in a population large enough you record hospitalizations, and on secondary analysis only do you try to determine why those hospitalization occurred - - there is no other variable out there in populations they studied which would account for 77 vs 93% - - sorry).

Just devil's advocate here, but would you still "feel" this way if you had received Moderna? If there is any "feeling" in either direction, you have to acknowledge that bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlatSix911
there is no other variable out there in populations they studied which would account for 77 vs 93% - - sorry

secondary analysis only do you try to determine why those hospitalization occurred

So you don't think that:

- Substantially more individuals from the South in the Pfizer group
- Substantially more vaccinated individuals previously hospitalized in prior year (close to 50%) than in the control group (36%)
- Generally observing a group of hospitalized individuals
- 58% of vaccinated individuals are over 65, while 35% of unvaccinated individuals are over 65

...would have any impact on actual efficacy, as applied to the general population (which is what matters)???

Note that I do think that in this Pfizer group studied, the efficacy against hospitalization is substantially lower than it is for Moderna group studied. I mean, that's literally what they found. But the groups are not demographically the same, so I suspect the actual gap in efficacy is smaller than they found, though likely still significant. And smaller still when generalized to the overall population (perhaps same ratio of breakthrough rates, but that means a smaller gap).

I just don't think that taking a group of people, half of who have been hospitalized in the past year for other reasons, 58-59% of whom are over 65, is generalizable to the population.

And I don't think calculating efficacy, with a population which is 58% over 65 in one case, and 35% in the unvaccinated control group, is a good way to calculate efficacy, as we normally think about it.

Just devil's advocate here, but would you still "feel" this way if you had received Moderna?
Yes, I think I would still question this data. I've had my booster, so I don't really feel motivated by what I WANT to be true. I was happy to take a dose which otherwise would have been wasted.

Note again that I do think Pfizer efficacy against hospitalization is declining, likely more than Moderna, as I've made very clear. And I think that older people and healthcare workers should absolutely be getting boosted ASAP and the data supports that. (And everyone should be allowed to boost as soon as possible - needs to be before November in my opinion.) Just to make sure you understand where I'm coming from.

But the 77% number against hospitalization is too much clickbait, sorry. Not representative. My efficacy against hospitalization prior to receiving my booster was very likely over 95%, for example. But taking that up to 98% (or whatever) was a no-brainer (that's twice as good).

If it were reported as "Pfizer efficacy against hospitalization falls to 77% in older, sickly populations, weighted towards generally economically depressed areas, when compared to healthier younger unvaccinated individuals" - I can agree with that.

There's tons of evidence that in immunocompromised and elderly populations, the larger dose and longer spacing of Moderna is doing good work. And it likely helps quite a bit at all eligible ages:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yuri_G
1:3

Wf7wzxO.jpg
 
So you don't think that:

- Substantially more individuals from the South in the Pfizer group
- Substantially more vaccinated individuals previously hospitalized in prior year (close to 50%) than in the control group (36%)
- Generally observing a group of hospitalized individuals
- 58% of vaccinated individuals are over 65, while 35% of unvaccinated individuals are over 65

...would have any impact on actual efficacy, as applied to the general population (which is what matters)???

Note that I do think that in this Pfizer group studied, the efficacy against hospitalization is substantially lower than it is for Moderna group studied. I mean, that's literally what they found. But the groups are not demographically the same, so I suspect the actual gap in efficacy is smaller than they found, though likely still significant. And smaller still when generalized to the overall population (perhaps same ratio of breakthrough rates, but that means a smaller gap).

I just don't think that taking a group of people, half of who have been hospitalized in the past year for other reasons, 58-59% of whom are over 65, is generalizable to the population.

And I don't think calculating efficacy, with a population which is 58% over 65 in one case, and 35% in the unvaccinated control group, is a good way to calculate efficacy, as we normally think about it.


Yes, I think I would still question this data. I've had my booster, so I don't really feel motivated by what I WANT to be true. I was happy to take a dose which otherwise would have been wasted.

Note again that I do think Pfizer efficacy against hospitalization is declining, likely more than Moderna, as I've made very clear. And I think that older people and healthcare workers should absolutely be getting boosted ASAP and the data supports that. (And everyone should be allowed to boost as soon as possible - needs to be before November in my opinion.) Just to make sure you understand where I'm coming from.

But the 77% number against hospitalization is too much clickbait, sorry. Not representative. My efficacy against hospitalization prior to receiving my booster was very likely over 95%, for example. But taking that up to 98% (or whatever) was a no-brainer (that's twice as good).

If it were reported as "Pfizer efficacy against hospitalization falls to 77% in older, sickly populations, weighted towards generally economically depressed areas, when compared to healthier younger unvaccinated individuals" - I can agree with that.

There's tons of evidence that in immunocompromised and elderly populations, the larger dose and longer spacing of Moderna is doing good work. And it likely helps quite a bit at all eligible ages:

We'll agree to disagree. If the data were bad, people with a lot more clout than you (or me) would be putting it to the fire. They aren't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlatSix911
We'll agree to disagree. If the data were bad, people with a lot more clout than you (or me) would be putting it to the fire. They aren't.
What would that look like? It seems to me that people with a lot of clout are recommending boosters for the elderly who got Pfizer and those at high risk. Which is exactly what we would expect since that is what this (and other) data supports. Hospitalization rates for COVID in these specific Pfizer-vaccinated populations are too high.

It’s not like this MMWR is nonsense! It shows what it shows - the elderly, for sure, should get Pfizer boosters ASAP. There’s no reason to put it to the fire.

What it doesn’t show is 77% efficacy against hospitalization, with Pfizer, for the population as a whole.

One way to think about it is that 93% -> 77% (Pfizer 3.3x worse) difference seen could translate to a 98% (Moderna) -> 94% (Pfizer) hospitalization efficacy in the general population. Quite possible something like that is happening (Pfizer 3x worse). We'd need to have more data to see how it actually pans out. Would mean 96% efficacy or so overall, which is about what we're seeing (in San Diego County we're seeing about 97% efficacy; vaccinated patients are about 38 times less likely to end up in the hospital - sadly not broken out by vaccine type). And this may well drop over time.

Colorado breaks out by vaccine type, but unfortunately only by cases (not hospitalization). Due to Janssen it's hard to know individual vaccine efficacy against hospitalization (can't back calculate Moderna/Pfizer proportions - might be able to look up elsewhere in their data), but average efficacy against hospitalization without any adjustment for populations, etc., is 87%. Again J&J may be dragging this down a bit but it is a small proportion. And again, this efficacy is not adjusted for age differences in the populations, etc. It's likely a lower limit anyway.

Screen Shot 2021-09-22 at 3.24.52 PM.png
 
Last edited:
vaccinated patients
*individuals

(can't back calculate Moderna/Pfizer proportions - might be able to look up elsewhere in their data)

Again, can't use it to calculate efficacy because of population differences, and there's no data on hospitalization by vaccine type, so no way to calculate efficacy against hospitalization even with that population caveat, but it does help fill in a piece of the puzzle.

Screen Shot 2021-09-22 at 3.33.17 PM.png
 
Last edited:
My wife is telling me that several of her patients have had their third shot of Pfizer and all have had a miserable couple of days after, with general achiness and tiredness, but no serious reactions. She's telling them that shows it is working, getting a significant immune response. She plans to get her booster on a Friday so she has a weekend to recover.
 
Boosters approved! Covers a LOT of people (effectively, anyone who wants them, though difficulty may vary depending on the local screening - likely will be much more lax than it was earlier this year). Great news.

"The FDA’s statement said broad array of essential workers — 'health care professionals, teachers and day care staff, grocery workers and those in homeless shelters or prisons, among others' — should be eligible for boosters."

 
  • Like
Reactions: Yuri_G and madodel
Twitter ---- Since United Airlines implemented a vaccine mandate for all 67,000 employees, 97% of workers have gotten vaccinated. The company expects those numbers to further increase ahead of the September 28 deadline, per several news sources (do a google search as I did to verify).

Vaccine mandates can work. Certainly varies by the job type (ie. harder to jump around type of jobs I'd guess).
 
I'm very happy to see some vaccine mandates popping up around me. One of the canoe paddling clubs I belong to now requires participants in any and all club activities to be vaccinated, no exceptions for any reason. Another requires vaccination or (with a medical or religious exemption) a very recent (two or three day) negative test. Another nearby club that I don't belong to has a mandate, no exceptions, and another has a mandate, but I don't know if they allow exceptions. Just one of the clubs I belong to (out of three) does not yet have a mandate. I know there are several new-age anti-vaxxers among them, and that's probably what's preventing the club from having a mandate.

And the Pilates studio I go to phoned the other day to tell me to bring my vaccination card next time I come to class.

Hopefully more mandates will encourage more people to get vaccinated.

On boosters, the experts don't seem to agree. Some think that protection remains so high that boosters are not needed at this time. Others feel they are. I'll reserve my opinion until there's a consensus among experts. Laypersons often see one report or study and assume that's definitive. But you can't judge the quality of a study if you're not knowledgeable in the field.

Of course I'll get the booster if it's offered to me because nobody (other than cranks, crackpots, and conspiracy loons) is saying it's harmful. The only unsettled point is whether it's necessary.

If there's a 5G chip in the vaccine does that mean I could watch streaming video without a phone? ;) :cool: :rolleyes:
 
Twitter ---- Since United Airlines implemented a vaccine mandate for all 67,000 employees, 97% of workers have gotten vaccinated. The company expects those numbers to further increase ahead of the September 28 deadline, per several news sources (do a google search as I did to verify).

Vaccine mandates can work. Certainly varies by the job type (ie. harder to jump around type of jobs I'd guess).

That last 3% is going to be a battle:
 
Don't know if you can stream, but you'd need one heck of a syringe.

I talked to a friend the other day who thought there "probably" was no chip in the vaccine, but he insisted it was possible. I pointed out to him that the syringe inner diameter is about the size of a hair. He apparently thinks that chips can be microscopic because he insisted that it was possible. I figure the only way to deal with people like that is to tell them that it would be a cheap way to get streaming video for free. At least he is vaccinated and supports vaccination because he figures there's "probably" no chip in the vaccine. :oops:
 

Quote: "The six employees in the class action lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas-Fort Worth Division,
were placed on unpaid leave after their exemption requests were granted, according to the lawsuit."

United Airlines played it well (granted but then unpaid leave) and certainly did their legal research before implementing their rules. Are the employees willing to go unpaid for months of court battle ...
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: bkp_duke
TN stayin classy.


"Force a shot on us? We force a shot on you! The Final covid variant, Communism."

oh and Gas is $2.75 a gallon

As @bkp_duke has said, mandating vaccines will get people shot. We can make it very painful to not be vaccinated, but mandates will likely not work in the current political climate.

BTW, gas is cheap there. I just looked and the cheapest gas around here is $3.41 a gallon (I had to look it up). Washington has a high gas tax. Between the high gas tax and cheap electricity owning an electric car is attractive in this state.

I talked to a friend the other day who thought there "probably" was no chip in the vaccine, but he insisted it was possible. I pointed out to him that the syringe inner diameter is about the size of a hair. He apparently thinks that chips can be microscopic because he insisted that it was possible. I figure the only way to deal with people like that is to tell them that it would be a cheap way to get streaming video for free. At least he is vaccinated and supports vaccination because he figures there's "probably" no chip in the vaccine. :oops:

You can tell him that an engineer in the IC industry (me) told you that making chips that small is way beyond our current technology. The grain of rice chips put into animals is the current state of the art and the range of the chips is a couple of millimeters. You need to put the reader on the skin over the chip to read it.

Anything capable of transmitting any distance requires a battery and the further the distance, the larger the battery. If we had batteries that could power a transmitter for any length of time that could be made small enough to go into a syringe, we could scale that up and make Tesla's with 10,000 miles range on a single charge.

Another point my partner likes to make to people. Why would anyone want to go to all the trouble to develop a tracking chip to put in vaccines when people are allowing themselves to be tracked 24/7 with their cell phones? It's possible to not be tracked via your cell phone, but it takes work to change all the settings. I would expect that at least 95% of the people who think the vaccine has microchips in it are easily tracked via their cell phones.
 
Alaska Gov. Dunleavy activates crisis standards of care for entire state to help COVID-overwhelmed hospitals - By Zaz Hollander
Updated: 4 hours ago [9/22/2021]
Alaska is activating crisis standards of care for the entire state, a drastic step that signals staff shortages and influx of COVID-19 patients could make it impossible for some hospitals to treat everyone.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy and top Alaska Department of Health and Social Services officials announced the decision Wednesday, as Alaska’s new single-day cases hit another record with the highly infectious delta variant continuing to drive surging infections and hospitalizations.

Alaska, with a health care system made vulnerable by isolation, this week hit the highest new COVID-19 case rate per capita in the country.
...
A crisis standards declaration is seen as a last resort that means the number of patients needing care is more than hospitals can handle because of staff, bed or equipment shortages. Providers can prioritize patients based largely on their likelihood of survival or even deny treatment.
 
BTW, gas is cheap there. I just looked and the cheapest gas around here is $3.41 a gallon (I had to look it up). Washington has a high gas tax. Between the high gas tax and cheap electricity owning an electric car is attractive in this state.
We have high gas tax here also but cost of living is super low, they don't call it fly over country for nothing. Depends on the state (8 to choose from) but when you cross the border from TN to another state you might see cheaper gas on the other side.


I-40 and I-75 carry a lot of cargo and passengers through here. I'd be happy to see them bump our gas taxes much higher, not like it would curtail use any, might as well tax them as they come through, and lower the taxes on my EV plate/tags.
 
Alaska Gov. Dunleavy activates crisis standards of care for entire state to help COVID-overwhelmed hospitals - By Zaz Hollander
Updated: 4 hours ago [9/22/2021]


This is what the hospital systems collapsing into a critical state of crisis looks like. Care isn't ending, but people are dying because there isn't enough capacity to save everyone.

We have high gas tax here also but cost of living is super low, they don't call it fly over country for nothing. Depends on the state (8 to choose from) but when you cross the border from TN to another state you might see cheaper gas on the other side.


I-40 and I-75 carry a lot of cargo and passengers through here. I'd be happy to see them bump our gas taxes much higher, not like it would curtail use any, might as well tax them as they come through, and lower the taxes on my EV plate/tags.

TN is in the lower 50% of states. At one time WA was #2, but it's now #8.
How High are Gas Taxes in Your State?