I wonder if someone can put me straight here?
DS has been running a series of articles identifying the waning efficacy of the vaccines. The last one said something like "vaccine efficacy now minus 109%".
I have two problems with this, probably both due to my own limited brainpower.
First, how is it ever sensible to talk about vaccine efficacy as being "minus" anything? I appreciate that this was an attempt at comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated. But realistically (and unless the vaccine is actively giving you an illness or killing all its recipients) a vaccine either works as intended (i.e. reduces/eliminates death/serious illness) or it does not. It will not work in 100% of cases, so I can understand why efficacy might be below 100%. And if it was totally useless, and didn't work at all, I can understand efficacy being 0%. But surely it is a an unhelpful and possibly misleading manipulation via comparison to create such striking "minus" figures, particularly given the extremely high % of vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated? The impression given is that you are more likely to be infected if you are vaccinated, which is simply not true.
Secondly, all this talk of steeply declining vaccine efficacy seems to me to be a grand exercise in missing the point. Britain has had an average of 30,000-40,000 (roughly) "cases" a day for months now and yet hospital admissions and deaths remain stubbornly flat. The vaccines obviously work by reference to the only important measure, namely the ability to limit serious illness and death. Therefore, running articles which splash with headings and phrases such as latest figures show "an unadjusted vaccine effectiveness of minus 109%" when this only applies to protection against infection is, in my view, unhelpful to open debate.
I haven't missed the fact that there is a line later on in the report clarifying the distinction, but that only shows if you click "Read More", and not everyone has time every day to do that.
I am a committed lockdown/vaccine passport etc sceptic and firmly believe everyone should be free to choose whether to take the vaccine or not. But I do think that articles on this site should avoid the pitfalls seen in the MSM of glossing over unwelcome facts to make a preferred point.
You correctly point out that -109% is obviously nonsense.
But the aim of such articles is to influence the reader towards the opinion of the author. We can only assume it's just part of an anti-vaxx stance, which are powered by misinformation.
Hello there,
I'm no expert, but could the strange negative value of efficacy be due to the misguiding way the vaccine efficacy is calculated? Are you familiar with RRR (Relative Risk Reduction) and ARR (Absolute Risk Reduction)?
From what I understand, Pfizer started off with 95% (RRR) efficacy which dropped to around 50% due to the Israeli vaccination outcomes.
I pasted in a spreadsheet I made a few weeks ago to try to understand the weird way this is all calculated.
I hope it helps in some way.
Pfizer | Placebo | Oxford AZ | Placebo | Ivermectin | Placebo | |||
All Participants | 17411 | 17511 | 13934 | 13883 | 919 | 505 | ||
Didnt Catch | 17403 | 17349 | 13923 | 13698 | 919 | 257 | ||
Caught Covid | 8 | 162 | 11 | 185 | 0 | 248 | ||
% who caught | 0.05% | 0.93% | 0.08% | 1.33% | 0.00% | 49.11% | ||
% who didnt | 99.95% | 99.07% | 99.92% | 98.67% | 100.00% | 50.89% | ||
extrap to 100k | 46 | 925 | 79 | 1333 | 0 | 49109 | ||
Relative Risk (RRR) | 95% | 94% | 100% | |||||
Absolute Risk (ARR) | 0.88% | 1.25% | 49.11% |
This doesn't explain a negative efficacy at all.
Negative efficacy would mean the treatment increases the incidence, relative to the placebo.
Looking at your numbers, you take the trouble to include ivermectin, which is considered a feasible treatment by some (as yet unproven in any meaningful trials).
Your numbers seem to suggest a 100% efficacy for prevention, which is obviously not true. Then compared to the inexplicable 49% infection rate for placebo in this sample. Doesn't compare well to all the other placebo groups. About 50x worse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you advise where you got these numbers from?
Yes my apologies, please disregard the Ivermectin figures from the above spreadsheet, I posted in haste this morning!
These are the Ivermectin figures I collected a few weeks back. I understand some stuidies have been retracted since that time though:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/" }" data-sheets-hyperlink="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/"> | |||||
Meta Analysis | |||||
Ivermectin | Control | ||||
Caught | Total | Caught | Total | ||
Behera | 15 | 91 | 171 | 281 | |
Carvallo-1 | 0 | 131 | 11 | 98 | |
Carvallo-2 | 0 | 788 | 237 | 407 | |
Alam | 4 | 58 | 44 | 60 | |
Elgazzar | 2 | 100 | 10 | 100 | |
Shournan | 15 | 203 | 59 | 101 | |
Chala | 4 | 117 | 25 | 117 | |
Total | 40 | 1488 | 557 | 1164 | |
% who caught | 2.7% | 47.9% | |||
% who didnt | 97.3% | 52.1% | |||
extrap to 100k | 2688 | 47852 | |||
Relative Risk (RRR) | 93% | ||||
Absolute Risk (ARR) | 45.2% |
The Pfizer and Moderna figures were taken from page 24 of the EUA.