Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
moveurfeet32

Ivy League just cancels all Winter Sports

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, HokieHWT said:

Ok I’ll drop this and then sit back and enjoy the thread from now on.

CoVID Vacccine

November 9-10: Pfizer & BioNTech; incomplete results; 90% effective

November 16th: Moderna; complete results with safety data; 94.5% effective; submitted for emergency approval

Today, November 18th: Pfizer & BioNTech; complete results including safety data; 95% effective; submitted for emergency appproval.

Without seeing the sampling procedures/criteria, I couldn’t tell you whether their samples are valid but I do know they were small. 30-40K in the samples and only 100-180, respectively, contracted COVID. Of the 170 who contracted COVID in the Pfizer trial, 162 were in the placebo group and 8 had received the vaccine. The data isn’t public, only high level overviews of the findings.

Additionally, confounding variables, stuff that can contribute to an observed result, such as age, weight, other sicknesses/diseases, etc., have not been mentioned, and that may be purposeful, which is concerning.

 

You seem to know something about it, so question. I'd read that there were 44k in the Pfizer study, with 22k in the placebo/22k in the vaccine group. If 162 people got COVID in the placebo, is it reasonable to extrapolate that as a ratio for the general population? Or is it a situation where we are better off looking at the positivity rate of the vaccine group, and simply assuming that 100% of people will eventually get COVID?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HokieHWT said:

Ok I’ll drop this and then sit back and enjoy the thread from now on.

CoVID Vacccine

November 9-10: Pfizer & BioNTech; incomplete results; 90% effective

November 16th: Moderna; complete results with safety data; 94.5% effective; submitted for emergency approval

Today, November 18th: Pfizer & BioNTech; complete results including safety data; 95% effective; submitted for emergency appproval.

Without seeing the sampling procedures/criteria, I couldn’t tell you whether their samples are valid but I do know they were small. 30-40K in the samples and only 100-180, respectively, contracted COVID. Of the 170 who contracted COVID in the Pfizer trial, 162 were in the placebo group and 8 had received the vaccine. The data isn’t public, only high level overviews of the findings.

Additionally, confounding variables, stuff that can contribute to an observed result, such as age, weight, other sicknesses/diseases, etc., have not been mentioned, and that may be purposeful, which is concerning.

 

I don’t understand the point you are making. Are you are concerned about a vaccine that is 95% effective? You think they stacked the trial so 95% of high risk individuals received the placebo? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Janderson133 said:

You seem to know something about it, so question. I'd read that there were 44k in the Pfizer study, with 22k in the placebo/22k in the vaccine group. If 162 people got COVID in the placebo, is it reasonable to extrapolate that as a ratio for the general population? Or is it a situation where we are better off looking at the positivity rate of the vaccine group, and simply assuming that 100% of people will eventually get COVID?

To put it in layman’s terms, if you get the vaccine, you will either not get covid at all or get a much milder version of covid. This is because the vaccine gives your immune system the ability to prevent/combat infection.  
 

In some rare cases, it’s possible you may still get a serious version of the disease, especially if you have an autoimmune disorder that limits the efficacy of the vaccine. Or possibly if the batch of vaccine you got for whatever reason was no good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HokieHWT said:

Without seeing the sampling procedures/criteria, I couldn’t tell you whether their samples are valid but I do know they were small. 30-40K in the samples and only 100-180, respectively, contracted COVID. Of the 170 who contracted COVID in the Pfizer trial, 162 were in the placebo group and 8 had received the vaccine. The data isn’t public, only high level overviews of the findings.

I may be confusing trials, but I think I read that even the people who were immunized and contracted the virus, it was a relatively mild case, which is also a good sign for efficacy, right? It sounds like an indication that the vax helps prime the body's natural immune response and keeps the virus somewhat under control.

30 minutes ago, dman115 said:

Then what is your point of even responding to Janderson133??  Just to try and portray some sort of intelligence by using big words?  To be a troll?  Or would you care to provide your opinion on the matter?

I think the answer here is not to "trust" China or to take what they say as gospel or to even prefer, broadly, China's approach to government. It is to ask "is there value, in limited cases, of more direct government action." In cases where the government response was aggressive - not only China but also, for example, Vietnam - the virus was easier to contain. This doesn't necessarily reflect an endorsement of that governmental approach in all cases but rather as a possible indication that during an emergency there might be some value in top-down rules rather than reliance on the good will of your neighbors (especially when numbers are increasing rapidly, suggesting less-than-neighborly compliance). In Sweden and South Dakota, jurisdictions that embrace theories of herd immunity and maximum personal choice with respect to masks and distancing, the results have been catastrophic. Places that enforce measures briefly but then relax them at the first sign of improvement soon see a rebound (like NYC, where I am). I think there's decent evidence from experience that stricter rules in the short term pay long term dividends.

Is that a reasonable middle ground that won't get me asked if I want to move to Guangzhou?

Edited by ugarte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Janderson133 said:

You seem to know something about it, so question. I'd read that there were 44k in the Pfizer study, with 22k in the placebo/22k in the vaccine group. If 162 people got COVID in the placebo, is it reasonable to extrapolate that as a ratio for the general population? Or is it a situation where we are better off looking at the positivity rate of the vaccine group, and simply assuming that 100% of people will eventually get COVID?

To be honest, I can’t answer that without seeing their methodology, sampling procedures, and how they are stratifying data.

I won’t make assumptions on the results without causing someone to take it and say “well a guy I know said that...which is proof that this means....”

It’s common knowledge, in any profession, that you can get the results you want by manipulating data. That does not mean that I’m accusing anyone of fraud, I’m not. I’m not saying anything was done unethically either. By manipulating data I don’t mean changing results on purpose either. By combining, merging, or deleting certain data in different ways you can end up with different results.

In social science research, particularly in academia, it’s not uncommon to “clean” data to the point that you receive a statistically significant result with a p-value less than (p < .05) to be able to say “yes” or “no” to a research question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ugarte said:

I may be confusing trials, but I think I read that even the people who were immunized and contracted the virus, it was a relatively mild case, which is also a good sign for efficacy, right? It sounds like an indication that the vax helps prime the body's natural immune response and keeps the virus somewhat under control.

Exactly as you describe, and this is how all vaccines work. They trick your body into thinking it has been infected by the virus already so now it has the tools to either prevent infections altogether or respond more rapidly in case of reinfection. Each subsequent exposure increases your ability to respond (this is why you get a booster shot.

 

8 minutes ago, HokieHWT said:

To be honest, I can’t answer that without seeing their methodology, sampling procedures, and how they are stratifying data.

I won’t make assumptions on the results without causing someone to take it and say “well a guy I know said that...which is proof that this means....”

It’s common knowledge, in any profession, that you can get the results you want by manipulating data. That does not mean that I’m accusing anyone of fraud, I’m not. I’m not saying anything was done unethically either. By manipulating data I don’t mean changing results on purpose either. By combining, merging, or deleting certain data in different ways you can end up with different results.

In social science research, particularly in academia, it’s not uncommon to “clean” data to the point that you receive a statistically significant result with a p-value less than (p < .05) to be able to say “yes” or “no” to a research question.

It’s not even worth speculating, as you are doing. We are talking about both Pfizer/biontech  and Moderna/NIH reporting independently that their vaccines, which use the same technology, are 95% effective.  The data will be published soon, but I guarantee you that these groups are accurately reflecting their  results and the vaccine once widely administered will end the pandemic and provide immunity to those who receive it.

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

I don’t understand the point you are making. Are you are concerned about a vaccine that is 95% effective? You think they stacked the trial so 95% of high risk individuals received the placebo? 

I’m not concerned about the results. I think it’s wonderful. I don’t think they stacked anything. It’s merely a small sample size. It was just funny, not in a conspiracy way, that Pfizer said “we have 90%”, then Moderna said “we have 95%”, then Pfizer said “we have 95% as well!”.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HokieHWT said:

I’m not concerned about the results. I think it’s wonderful. I don’t think they stacked anything. It’s merely a small sample size. It was just funny, not in a conspiracy way, that Pfizer said “we have 90%”, then Moderna said “we have 95%”, then Pfizer said “we have 95% as well!”.

 

 

Ah, yeah I agree it’s funny. It’s not surprising given that the two technologies are identical. I agree that whatever small difference in percent between Pfizer and biontech is likely due to sampling error of the studies. 
 

Just as a side note to those interested. The results from these trials not only signal the imminent end of Covid but also all future coronavirus pandemics. Moderna has indicated that if another one emerges (e.g. SARS-COV-3), they will be able to shorten their development and distribution window down to 30 to 60 days.  
 

This technology will also likely dramatically reduce deaths from seasonal flu due to the huge decrease in development time-increasing the accuracy of the strains covered by the seasonal flu vaccine. So I would also expect them to respond rapidly to a single strain flu pandemic (1 to 2 months). 

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

Ah, yeah I agree it’s funny. It’s not surprising given that the two technologies are identical. I agree that whatever small difference in percent between Pfizer and biontech is likely due to sampling error of the studies. 

Absolutely. Overall, what I was trying to do, and failed miserably at, was to make a point about trusting everything you read and here. I was trying to make a point that unless you are the ones performing the research, and having in-depth knowledge of every aspect, you can’t assume anything.

It should be obvious, by now, I’m in the field. I’ve consulted with the CDC, ED, NIH and WHO, among others, this year and no one knows who’s working on what.

It’s so compartmentalized, for various reasons, it’s hard to keep up with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

Ah, yeah I agree it’s funny. It’s not surprising given that the two technologies are identical. I agree that whatever small difference in percent between Pfizer and biontech is likely due to sampling error of the studies. 
 

Just as a side note to those interested. The results from these trials not only signal the imminent end of Covid but also all future coronavirus pandemics. Moderna has indicated that if another one emerges (e.g. SARS-COV-3), they will be able to shorten their development and distribution window down to 30 to 60 days.  
 

This technology will also likely dramatically reduce deaths from seasonal flu due to the huge decrease in development time-increasing the accuracy of the strains covered by the seasonal flu vaccine. So I would also expect them to respond rapidly to a single strain flu pandemic (1 to 2 months). 

I’m out of emotes but I’d give 100 likes/thanks if I could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

Ah, yeah I agree it’s funny. It’s not surprising given that the two technologies are identical. I agree that whatever small difference in percent between Pfizer and biontech is likely due to sampling error of the studies. 
 

Just as a side note to those interested. The results from these trials not only signal the imminent end of Covid but also all future coronavirus pandemics. Moderna has indicated that if another one emerges (e.g. SARS-COV-3), they will be able to shorten their development and distribution window down to 30 to 60 days.  
 

This technology will also likely dramatically reduce deaths from seasonal flu due to the huge decrease in development time-increasing the accuracy of the strains covered by the seasonal flu vaccine. So I would also expect them to respond rapidly to a single strain flu pandemic (1 to 2 months). 

Moderna does not have any other products, correct?  Is it reasonable for people to be concerned about that?  However if theirs does not seem to be needed to kept as cold as Pfizer's then it seems like it could be more practical.

I had also thought of the same question that janderson did.   I was surprised that so few (relatively speaking) people even among those that got the placebo actually ended up getting covid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

 

I had also thought of the same question that janderson did.   I was surprised that so few (relatively speaking) people even among those that got the placebo actually ended up getting covid.

This was what I, poorly, was trying to allude to in the confounding variable comment I made. Unless everyone were exposed to the same environmental factors, their are always room for outside variables that cannot be accounted for, in the results.

Since I’m not privy to that information, but it appears Billy is well versed on the studies, he may have an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Moderna does not have any other products, correct?  Is it reasonable for people to be concerned about that?  However if theirs does not seem to be needed to kept as cold as Pfizer's then it seems like it could be more practical.

I had also thought of the same question that janderson did.   I was surprised that so few (relatively speaking) people even among those that got the placebo actually ended up getting covid.

That is just the number of people who contracted it over the short period that the trial ran so far. Statistically the 95% efficacy is overwhelming. If after sample increases, it ends up being 80%, it’s still a highly effective vaccine. Most likely though it will stay in the 90+ % range.

I would not be concerned that Moderna does not have anything else on the market. Their trial reported 0 serious adverse events in 20 thousand people who received the vaccine.  The Pfizer vaccine was 0 in a similarly large sample. Compared to the risk of contracting covid, any risk from the vaccine is miniscule. 
 

I also think the temperature concerns are a bit overblown. I bet Pfizer will be able to have similar stability eventually after reformulation-it’s possible they already do and just need further in depth validation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

That is just the number of people who contracted it over the short period that the trial ran so far. Statistically the 95% efficacy is overwhelming. If after sample increases, it ends up being 80%, it’s still a highly effective vaccine. Most likely though it will stay in the 90+ % range.

Got it, thanks.  Yeah I read some of the release from the Pfizer one and I think there were still several thousand people that haven't even gotten the second dose yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HokieHWT said:

I’m not concerned about the results. I think it’s wonderful. I don’t think they stacked anything. It’s merely a small sample size. It was just funny, not in a conspiracy way, that Pfizer said “we have 90%”, then Moderna said “we have 95%”, then Pfizer said “we have 95% as well!”.

Actually, I believe they said more than 90%

Pfizer’s Early Data Shows Vaccine Is More Than 90% Effective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

Actually, I believe they said more than 90%

Pfizer’s Early Data Shows Vaccine Is More Than 90% Effective

Fair enough. That means it was between 90.0 and 90.4% after initial testing. If it we’re 90.5% to 91.0% they would have said 91.0% effective.

Was this suppose to be some kind of “gotcha”?

Currently they have 94.5% effectiveness and are declaring 95%. Not sure what you’re going for?

Every publicly available article I’d seen from either 11/9 or 11/10, cited said “90%”, including quotes from their representatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HokieHWT said:

Fair enough. That means it was between 90.0 and 90.4% after initial testing. If it we’re 90.5% to 91.0% they would have said 91.0% effective.

Was this suppose to be some kind of “gotcha”?

Currently they have 94.5% effectiveness and are declaring 95%. Not sure what you’re going for?

Every publicly available article I’d seen from either 11/9 or 11/10, cited said “90%”, including quotes from their representatives.

100% is also more than 90%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, teach said:

Funny, I keep checking this thread to see if there is any news on wrestling?  Silly me.

Gabe and Max Dean are wrestling this weekend against David Taylor and CJ Brucki, respectively, in the NLWC event.

Vito, Yianni, Gabe and Max, and Kyle are wrestling in the RTC Cup on 12/4-5 for Spartan Combat RTC.  So are Glory and Kolodzik for NJRCT

That's all I got.  Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...