Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us

bonus2010

VIP Member
British Medical Journal: Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us (published 21st October 2020)


Peter Doshi said:
The world has bet the farm on vaccines as the solution to the pandemic, but the trials are not focused on answering the questions many might assume they are. Peter Doshi reports

Peter Hotez dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston said:
“Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.”


Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either (table 1). None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.


Evaluating mild, not severe, disease​

In a September interview Medscape editor in chief Eric Topol pondered what counts as a recorded “event” in the vaccine trials. “We’re not talking about just a PCR [polymerase chain reaction test]-positive mild infection. It has to be moderate to severe illness to qualify as an event, correct?” he asked.

“That’s right,” concurred his guest, Paul Offit, a vaccinologist who sits on the FDA advisory committee that may ultimately recommend the vaccines for licence or emergency use authorisation.

But that’s not right. In all the ongoing phase III trials for which details have been released, laboratory confirmed infections even with only mild symptoms qualify as meeting the primary endpoint definition.9101112 In Pfizer and Moderna’s trials, for example, people with only a cough and positive laboratory test would bring those trials one event closer to their completion. (If AstraZeneca’s ongoing UK trial is designed similarly to its “paused” US trial for which the company has released details, a cough and fever with positive PCR test would suffice.)

Part of the reason may be numbers. Severe illness requiring hospital admission, which happens in only a small fraction of symptomatic covid-19 cases, would be unlikely to occur in significant numbers in trials. Data published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in late April reported a symptomatic case hospitalisation ratio of 3.4% overall, varying from 1.7% in 0-49 year olds and 4.5% in 50-64 year olds to 7.4% in those 65 and over.13 Because most people with symptomatic covid-19 experience only mild symptoms,14 even trials involving 30 000 or more patients would turn up relatively few cases of severe disease.


Exactly! Trials involving 30,000 or more would turn up relatively few cases of severe disease

In the trials, final efficacy analyses are planned after just 150 to 160 “events,”—that is, a positive indication of symptomatic covid-19, regardless of severity of the illness.

I'm no scientist, but I don't think anyone has to be to agree we're talking about very very low numbers of events that of which isn't even taking account of the 'severity' count

Tal Zaks Chief Medical Oficer at Moderna said:
“Would I like to know that this prevents mortality? Sure, because I believe it does. I just don’t think it’s feasible within the timeframe [of the trial]—too many would die waiting for the results before we ever knew that.”

Yeah, rushed!

Stopping transmission​

Hmmm I'll stop quoting things now, add link to full article so members can read for themselves, but only to finish off by saying, I can't understand how the general public can be so confident that getting the jab will make it safer for everyone by stopping transmission or preventing people suffering the most severe of symptoms if catching this vurus.
Where on earth are they getting that information from ? Surely Can't be from Tal Zaks, Chief Medical Officer of Moderna, after reading his comments here, the trials simply were unable to test for this.



>>>>> Link to British Medical Journal article <<<<<
 

channelking

TK Veteran
Im not sure what you are trying to achieve with the articles you are posting constantly.

We get it you are not in favour of the vaccine thats fine its your choice and you have every right to do so.

But this type of information is not helping in the grand scheme of things which is to stop or at least slow down the virus rapidly with the vaccine.
 

pupuqiop

TK Veteran
TK Supporter
I can't understand how the general public can be so confident that getting the jab will make it safer for everyone by stopping transmission

I can't speak for "the general public," but I'm certainly not under any illusion that the vaccine stops transmission - in fact I've read many scientists going on record to state that it doesn't. So the question is, why do you think "the general public" think that?
 

bonus2010

VIP Member
Thread starter
Im not sure what you are trying to achieve with the articles you are posting constantly.

We get it you are not in favour of the vaccine thats fine its your choice and you have every right to do so.

But this type of information is not helping in the grand scheme of things which is to stop or at least slow down the virus rapidly with the vaccine.


Ohhh deary me, I'm trying to achieve posting.........

Secondly, I'm not selfish, it's not about me and what my preferences are, I'm just interested in this vaccination program, it's current

and thirdly, I can't see how sharing information is not helping, no on the contary the more information surely the better, after all this "covid" has affected all our lives here.
 

bonus2010

VIP Member
Thread starter
I can't speak for "the general public," but I'm certainly not under any illusion that the vaccine stops transmission - in fact I've read many scientists going on record to state that it doesn't. So the question is, why do you think "the general public" think that?

Hey, I know you're a member of the set="general public" as I am, and I'm not trying to suggest everyone thinks the same, but I have come across many comments of the general public who clearly state a believe this "vaccine" as with all vaccines will hault the virus in its tracks through severing the transmission. Most of those comments I've seen are on local community facebook pages. Although I should say, there is some truth of that happening in the past with smallpox vaccines, I'm sure I've even heard claims of that disease being eradicated worldwide.
 

channelking

TK Veteran
This virus will never be permanenetly eradicated as you will always have different kinds of strains out there.

The vaccine and variants of the vaccines will help in effect keep people protected with multiple doeses needed over a long period of time especially for those who are vulnerable and with health conditions.
 

bonus2010

VIP Member
Thread starter
This virus will never be permanenetly eradicated as you will always have different kinds of strains out there.


Yeah, I agree with you completely here, the coronavirus have been mutating for years, perfectly normal and they're all gonna here for a long time. I'm really happy with the scientific explanations I heard on this.

channelking said:
The vaccine and variants of the vaccines will help in effect keep people protected with multiple doeses needed over a long period of time especially for those who are vulnerable and with health conditions.


this one no, you're way ahead of me there... whether I get to where you are will depend on finding the proof, but the now, as you know, I'm shaking my head at that, I'm not even satisfied its a 'vaccine' but I'll get to that later...
 

pabloescaban

VIP Member
TK Supporter
You are, as always, missing the point.
No one said the vaccine stops you getting the virus.
No one said it stops you passing it on.
What it does do is prevents most people from getting extremely ill from the virus.

This makes a big difference in the grand scheme of things because if 100,000 people get the virus, a small percentage will die and a larger percentage will also need hospitalisation so say 1% will die and 10% will need hospitalisation so about 11% in hospital, so 1100 per 100,000 taking a hospital bed and about 110 will die.

The big problem arises when 500,000 have it and are taking up nearly 6000 beds.

Those same 500,000 who have been vaccinated might take up 500 beds.

Do you get my drift? 6000 is a bigger number than 500
 

pabloescaban

VIP Member
TK Supporter
Got my maths wrong there.
11% of 100,000 is 11,000 not 1100
So for 500,000 people catching it it would mean 55,000 needing hospitalisation.
Even with the vac it's still going to be quite bad but it shouldn't overwhelm the NHS which is what's happening now.
 

Obi wan bissaka

TK Veteran
TK Supporter
Yeah exactly that, its there to hopefully stop people needing hospital treatment and will get over it like the everyday flu, I read that people who have beaten the virus have the same protection also which is the silver lining I suppose. There's a calculator online which estimates the date when you will have the vaccine if anyone is interested, I wont link it because it could be complete bulls**t but just search "covid vaccine calculator"
 

userlee5267

TK Veteran
I'm for the vaccines and I've had mine. And also caught covid 6 weeks after the second vaccine

The only thing I don't get is the covid passports.

What do they do why do we need them really

As been said above it doesn't stop the spread or stop you getting it.

So why do we need one. It baffles me
 

grog68

VIP Member
I'm for the vaccines and I've had mine. And also caught covid 6 weeks after the second vaccine

The only thing I don't get is the covid passports.

What do they do why do we need them really

As been said above it doesn't stop the spread or stop you getting it.

So why do we need one. It baffles me
I may be wrong here, I am no expert. I think the argument is that even though the vax does not stop you catching/spreading it, it reduces the amount you spread. So if there is an event with just vaxed people, even though there is still a chance of getting/ spreading it, the number of cases from that event is going to be lower if it's just got vaxed people there compared to the same event full of non vaxed people, and any hospitalisations is going to be lower and the majority less serious.

That's the way I understand it anyway.
 
Top