> Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29% (see footnote).
The 95% claim assumes you've had both doses and five weeks have passed since the first dose. I don't think that's a fair way to dice the data. Also, "covid-19 symptoms" (the proxy that opinion writer used) are very non-specific. Headache, sore throat, cough - there's myriad causes. That's why PCR+ is the only way to get a decent signal.
This seems like a crackpot analysis, not that I'm an expert.
Oh, and finally, relative risk reduction (that number you're quoting) is a fundamentally different property than efficacy. It's the difference between the placebo and vaccine groups in catching covid. Relative risk reduction would only equal efficacy if 100% of the placebo group caught it.
Not everything you disagree with is a crackpot analysis.
>The BMJ is a weekly peer-reviewed medical trade journal, published by the trade union the British Medical Association (BMA). The BMJ has editorial freedom from the BMA. It is one of the world's oldest general medical journals. [1]
>Peter Doshi is an associate editor at said journal. He completed a fellowship in comparative effectiveness research at Johns Hopkins and received his Ph.D. in history, anthropology, and science, technology and society from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [2]
I could not quote the entire article, but as we all know, failing to quote any of it usually ends up with a majority not being aware of any content within the article.
The key finding is that further investigation is required into the substantial portion of people with COVID-like symptoms that occured in both the experimental and placebo groups, which has not been adequately analyzed.
The entire article addressed VE (measured by calculating the risk of disease among vaccinated and unvaccinated persons and determining the percentage reduction in risk of disease among vaccinated persons relative to unvaccinated persons) and showed the raw numbers which allows anyone else to reach the same calculation result.
You compared 95% (the Pfizer efficacy number) to 29% (the relative risk reduction number calculated by that article.) That is incorrect. You should acknowledge that.
I originally said it looks closer to 30% than 95% based on the limited data we have available, which anyone can do using the data in the article (and can even take a step further verify that these numbers came from the FDA's report).
Vaccine Effectiveness (as defined by the CDC [1]) is calculated by:
(Risk among unvaccinated group − risk among vaccinated group) / Risk among unvaccinated group
Vaccine participants: 18198
Placebo: 18325
Confirmed COVID on vaccine: 8
Confirmed COVID on placebo: 162
Suspected COVID on vaccine (excl. Within 7 days of dose): 1185
Suspected COVID on placebo (excl. Within 7 days of dose): 1407
