Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 2 [Mod Warning - Post #1]
Options
Comments
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Although I won't be taking the vaccine my question isn't an anti-vaccine (or pro-safe vaccined as some of us prefer to be called). I'd just like to understand the basis for deciding it's effective/works at all
Its been pointed out elsewhere that 95% efficacy doesn't, and isn't intended to say
that it's 95% effective (where 95% effective would mean that if you exposed yourself to Covid post-vaccination, there's a 95% chance you'd be protected against contracting Covid.)
Question 1.
How effective is the vaccine, given the definition of effective above. If that's known?
Question 2:
In the Pfizee trial there was something like 20000 given the vaccine / 9 went on the contract Covid. And 20000 were given a placebo / 83 went on to contract Covid.
This is taken to mean the vaccine prevented people in the vaccinated group from contracting Covid.
However, if you had two placebo groups heck, lets make it 100 placebo groups of 20,000 people, you wouldn't get 83 people in each of the 100 groups going on to contract Covid. You'd get a variation.
How much would that variation be? What would be the total range (highest amount contracting to lowest amount contracting) over the 100 placebo groups of 20,000.
If, for example, the range was 5-300 over the 100 placebo groups, how is there anything of significance to be extracted from the 9-83 trial result? That is, if natural variation is greater than what was observed in the trial, then.the trial doesn't demonstrate very.much
Just wondering what the thinking is around accommodating and taking account of natural variations in placebo groups.
)
Q1
95% refers to the difference in infection rate between groups which was used to measure and demonstrate the vaccine is effective in the clinical trials. So the vaccinated group were 95% protected based on the number of infections observed. So basically you consider about 9 out of 10 people would be protected by the vaccine. Actual number for the main event ie preventing Covid infection in people who did not have Covid before was 162 in placebo versus 8 in the vaccine.
Even if a vaccine showed 50% in a trial it could be considered useful as it would still expect to protect 1 in every 2 people vaccinated which of you had no other options might be still quite useful.
Q2
Randomised trials are very carefully planned (well good ones like the recent vaccine trials are anyway) to make sure the vaccine and placebo groups are very similar so that if a difference in infections are observed it is likely to be die to the vaccine. Same principle can be applied to some of the side effects.
The vaccine and placebo groups were very similar and the precise details of that are part of the assessment of the trials.
The trial is also designed to have a high statistical power to be able to determine did any differences in the main event (infection in this case) are likely to be real and therefore not due to chance.
The stats in these trials are such that there can be a lot of confidence that the differences in infection observed were real and not due to chance. The possibility of it being due to chance is absolutely tiny and part from it being unethical and ridiculous to repeat 200 times or whatever , it wouldn’t even make much difference to what is already a tiny chance0 -
Q1
95% refers to the difference in infection rate between groups which was used to measure and demonstrate the vaccine is effective in the clinical trials. So the vaccinated group were 95% protected based on the number of infections observed. So basically you consider about 9 out of 10 people would be protected by the vaccine.
As I understand it, you can't draw 9 out of 10 people protected (effectiveness) from an efficacy figure of 95%. Indeed, when I remarked that the man on the street would understand efficacy this way, I was told only an idiot would think that.
The way you would find out how effective the vaccine is is to vaccinate a large group. And then expose them to Covid. If 95% didn't contract Covid (whereas 100 out of 100 did in an unvaccinated group) then the vaccine would be 95% effective. Of course you can't do this trial.
So the question: how effective is the vaccine remains.Actual number for the main event ie preventing Covid infection in people who did not have Covid before was 162 in placebo versus 8 in the vaccine.
Okay, dunno where the 83/9 came from but no matter - we can import your figures into question 2.
I suppose we have to hold fire on the idea that "the vaccine prevented infection" until we figure out the question of natural variations. Which was my second question2
Randomised trials are very carefully planned (well good ones like the recent vaccine trials are anyway) to make sure the vaccine and placebo groups are very similar so that if a difference in infections are observed it is likely to be die to the vaccine. Same principle can be applied to some of the side effects.
The vaccine and placebo groups were very similar and the precise details of that are part of the assessment of the trials.
No disrespect but that's kind of boiler plate prose. The question is specific: what kind of natural variation would there be in 100 x 20,000 placebo groups being let loose into the world. You can "control" all you like - picking say 40 groups of 500 people located in a representative sample of areas in the world. You can control for age, health, ethnicity, etc.
What you can't control for is natural variationThe trial is also designed to have a high statistical power to be able to determine did any differences in the main event (infection in this case) are likely to be real and therefore not due to chance.
The stats in these trials are such that there can be a lot of confidence that the differences in infection observed were real and not due to chance. The possibility of it being due to chance is absolutely tiny and part from it being unethical and ridiculous to repeat 200 times or whatever , it wouldn’t even make much difference to what is already a tiny chance
So the question: what would the natural variation in Covid infection be in 100 x 20,000 placebo groups? That you cannot run such a trial is irrelevant. You do know that it won't be 9 in all placebo groups. There will be a max level of infection and a min level of infection. Is it 5-50? 3-250? 0-732?
If you don't know then you know nothing about 9-162 when it comes to saying the vaccine did it.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »If, for example, the range was 5-300 over the 100 placebo groups, how is there anything of significance to be extracted from the 9-83 trial result? That is, if natural variation is greater than what was observed in the trial, then.the trial doesn't demonstrate very.much
Just wondering what the thinking is around accommodating and taking account of natural variations in placebo groups.
This is what confidence intervals and statistical significance are for, to prevent us having to run numerous different trials with multiple placebo groups.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »As I understand it, you can't draw 9 out of 10 people protected (effectiveness) from an efficacy figure of 95%. Indeed, when I remarked that the man on the street would understand efficacy this way, I was told only an idiot would think that.
The way you would find out how effective the vaccine is is to vaccinate a large group. And then expose them to Covid. If 95% didn't contract Covid (whereas 100 out of 100 did in an unvaccinated group) then the vaccine would be 95% effective. Of course you can't do this trial.
So the question: how effective is the vaccine remains.
Okay, dunno where the 83/9 came from but no matter - we can import your figures into question 2.
I suppose we have to hold fire on the idea that "the vaccine prevented infection" until we figure out the question of natural variations. Which was my second question
No disrespect but that's kind of boiler plate prose. The question is specific: what kind of natural variation would there be in 100 x 20,000 placebo groups being let loose into the world. You can "control" all you like - picking say 40 groups of 500 people located in a representative sample of areas in the world. You can control for age, health, ethnicity, etc.
What you can't control for is natural variation
So the question: what would the natural variation in Covid infection be in 100 x 20,000 placebo groups? That you cannot run such a trial is irrelevant. You do know that it won't be 9 in all placebo groups. There will be a max level of infection and a min level of infection. Is it 5-50? 3-250? 0-732?
If you don't know then you know nothing about 9-162 when it comes to saying the vaccine did it.
I don’t need to know what the natural variation is. Do some calculations and research and enlighten me.
Your placebo wild variation experiment is meaningless unless you are also going to compare it with 40x500 matched vaccinated groups each and every time.
Yes I do know it might not be 9(why9) in all
part of the world.
I know the difference in Covid infection rate between groups was very very very unlikely to be due to chance. So I don’t need to hold fire to say the clinical trials demonstrated the vaccine efficacy.
The real world effectiveness in terms of reducing infection and hospital visits/admissions etc can only be demonstrated when that is studied outside of the trial and public health and stats specialists have designed studies to do that in Europe and US at least. Many other factors impact on that as well. But the trials have demonstrated efficacy in the trial groups so it is expected to actually be effective in the real world but no precise figure for that is available at the time a trial finishes.0 -
Does anyone know what testing time turnaround is at the moment (from time of test)?0
-
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »If you don't know then you know nothing about 9-162 when it comes to saying the vaccine did it.
To be honest, if you have a question about how to read and interpret data from scientific studies, there are other forums for it, and you're better off not putting your laymans spin on the results as you are just confusing yourself and asking questions that don't make sense.
From the trials perspective there are two important items, 95% efficacy, i.e. after taking the vaccine's doses you have a 95% chance of not having symptoms if you are exposed to the virus.
No severe illness for those who are vaccinated but do show symptoms, or test positive, i.e. the chance of dying from the virus is now extremely low.
Other items that haven't got results yet, but look promising is the chance of spreading the virus if you've had the vaccine (because of lack of symptoms, it's likely spread should be significantly reduced, certainly enough to keep R below 1 and have the virus die off in general population, barring spot outbreaks).
From a safety point of view, the amount of people in the trials and the lack of any severe effects in any of them points to a very safe set of vaccines.
The important thing now is to get everyone vaccinated so we can stamp the virus out and return back to normal living, there are a few, like yourself, who will put getting back to normality at risk, you will have to own that decision, and be prepared for lockdowns, social distancing and masks into the future if enough of you maintain that mindset.0 -
I've nothing against aviation, no (other than its contribution to climate change).
I was more wondering on the likelyhood of a vaccine passport being introduced this summer, given its negative effect of aviation and tourism industries. I wouldn't imagine aviation voting for it (turkeys voting for Christmad springs to mind).
And by summer 2022 you'll either have most people vaccinated (in which case herd immunity assumed and no particular reason to introduce vaccine passports) or significant numbers still not vaccinated in which case that % negative impact on aviation and tourism. My guess is that the ecomony will hold sway and we'll hear no more about vaccine passports.
Money will win. It usually does.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »I've nothing against aviation, no (other than its contribution to climate change).
I was more wondering on the likelyhood of a vaccine passport being introduced this summer, given its negative effect of aviation and tourism industries. I wouldn't imagine aviation voting for it (turkeys voting for Christmad springs to mind).
And by summer 2022 you'll either have most people vaccinated (in which case herd immunity assumed and no particular reason to introduce vaccine passports) or significant numbers still not vaccinated in which case that % negative impact on aviation and tourism. My guess is that the ecomony will hold sway and we'll hear no more about vaccine passports.
Money will win. It usually does.
It could go the other way too though. People who might be reluctant to travel deciding to fly if they know everyone else on the flight is vaccinated too. I’d say planes would fill far quicker in that scenario tbh.
But look, none of us know for sure, it’s all guesswork.0 -
To be honest, if you have a question about how to read and interpret data from scientific studies, there are other forums for it, and you're better off not putting your laymans spin on the results as you are just confusing yourself and asking questions that don't make sense.
From the trials perspective there are two important items, 95% efficacy, i.e. after taking the vaccine's doses you have a 95% chance of not having symptoms if you are exposed to the virus.
You see, it was a pro vaccination fella with a phD who pointed out that efficacy, in the case of this vaccine DIDN'T mean what you say it means that got me wondering.
What you understand is a 'man in the street understanding'. But that's incorrect. 95% efficacy is calculated from cases of Covid in the vaccinated and non vaccinated groups. You can't say anything about your idea of efficacy from that - since you only know numbers contracting Covid in either group. You don't know how many in either group were exposed to Covid.
For example, say it was 18 people in the vaccinated group that were exposed and 9 contracted Covid. That would make the vaccine 50% effective* - even though efficacy is calculated at 95%
* well it wouldn't even indicate that. We would have to know how many unvaccinated people contract Covid on exposure. It could be that only half of those unvaccinated who are exposed to Covid go on to develop Covid. In that case the effectivness of the vaccine would be zero.
(So much for laymans spin, when you, as a layman don't appear to understand what efficacy means in relation to this (and probably other) vaccines. 🀪)From a safety point of view, the amount of people in the trials and the lack of any severe effects in any of them points to a very safe set of vaccines.
What are the mid to long term effects. What? You've no idea??The important thing now is to get everyone vaccinated so we can stamp the virus out and return back to normal living, there are a few, like yourself, who will put getting back to normality at risk, you will have to own that decision, and be prepared for lockdowns, social distancing and masks into the future if enough of you maintain that mindset.
Like I say, although pro safe vaccines, which, in the current system makes me anti vax, that was not the point of my post.
I don't think its anti vax to point out, for instance, that what many people believe (e.g. you): that efficacy = effectiveness is erroneous.0 -
Good read on B-cell and T-cell responses, and how they respond to mutations.
https://twitter.com/ewanbirney/status/13403184226730762240 -
Advertisement
-
The randomised nature of the vaccine and placebo being administered is what makes it most likely that both groups have about equal exposure opportunity.
It's sampling in quantative terms.0 -
That's why you have a placebo group so you can compare effectiveness. If 18 people were exposed who were vaccinated and 1 gets infected, and 18 were exposed who are placebo and 9 of them get infected, you compare results. But of course it wasn't 36 people, it was 30,000 people.antiskeptic wrote: »For example, say it was 18 people in the vaccinated group that were exposed and 9 contracted Covid. That would make the vaccine 50% effective* - even though efficacy is calculated at 95%
Right, I personally think this is the usual anti-vax stuff disguised as "honest questions".Like I say, although pro safe vaccines, which, in the current system makes me anti vax, that was not the point of my post.0 -
It could go the other way too though. People who might be reluctant to travel deciding to fly if they know everyone else on the flight is vaccinated too. I’d say planes would fill far quicker in that scenario tbh.
But look, none of us know for sure, it’s all guesswork.
The reluctants would, I would imagine, get vaccinated. And if they believe (as it appears many do) that 95% efficacy = 95% effective, then they will fly.
If the reluctants also happen to not want to be vaccinated then it will be a battle between their desire to go on holiday vs the risk in a high vaccination uptake environment.
Since anti.vaxxers seem more concerned with vaccine safety than vaccine effectiveness they'll probably go on holidays.
It'll all probably iron out: sufficient numbers vaccinated such that Covid goes away, the small remaining unvaxxed not interfering with herd immunity, near enough.0 -
The UK has given the first dose to 350k people already. I'm actually getting annoyed with the EMA, so bloody slow. Let's get going ffs0
-
Double post0
-
Indestructable wrote: »The UK has given the first dose to 350k people already. I'm actually getting annoyed with the EMA, so bloody slow. Let's get going ffs
EMA are meeting on Monday and EU Commision have announced start dates of 27-29 December. Not long to wait now.0 -
That's why you have a placebo group so you can compare effectiveness. If 18 people were exposed who were vaccinated and 1 gets infected, and 18 were exposed who are placebo and 9 of them get infected, you compare results. But of course it wasn't 36 people, it was 30,000 people.
Yes, but it was 9 (iirc) of the 20000 or so vaccinated who contracted Covid. No one knows how many of the 20000 were exposed. And so no idea how effective the vaccine.
162 of the 20000 or so unvaccinated contracted Covid. And no idea there either how many were exposed to Covid.
The statistical assumption appears to be that the same amounts of people in both groups were exposed to Covid (or near enough same to render the difference ststistically insignificant) And so efficacy can be calculated.
But how effective is a different matterRight, I personally think this is the usual anti-vax stuff disguised as "honest questions".
I would have thought you would consider the difference between efficacy and effectiveness being pointed out as aiding and abetting informed consent. Irrespective of who the person was pointing it out.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that whilst efficacy was 95%, effectiveness was 40%. Might that inform the consent?
Or would you just prefer folk toed a party line in sheep like fashion?0 -
You've got it.antiskeptic wrote: »The statistical assumption appears to be that the same amounts of people in both groups were exposed to Covid.0 -
It is not a 'statistical assumption' it would be a calculated statistical probability.0
-
antiskeptic wrote: »
This is taken to mean the vaccine prevented people in the vaccinated group from contracting Covid.
Just to be clear.
The vaccine does not prevent infection with the coronavirus.
It does not prevent any possible transmission to a person.
What the mRNA vaccines do is trigger an immune response, so that **if** you are infected, then most people won't be as sick.
It is not known yet whether the vaccine prevents onwards transmission.0 -
Advertisement
-
Water John wrote: »It is not a 'statistical assumption' it would be a calculated statistical probability.
One wonders.
If you took 1000 batches of 20,000 like-selected people and gave them a placebo and then monitored.
A certain number is each group of 20,000 people will develop Covid. What would the range of cases be?. How would that range appear statistically? Would it be anywhere close to 162? Could it be 50?
I'm just enquiring into how these things are done, having laboured under the.impression, for example, that efficacy of 95% means 95% effective.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Yes, but it was 9 (iirc) of the 20000 or so vaccinated who contracted Covid. No one knows how many of the 20000 were exposed. And so no idea how effective the vaccine.
162 of the 20000 or so unvaccinated contracted Covid. And no idea there either how many were exposed to Covid.
The statistical assumption appears to be that the same amounts of people in both groups were exposed to Covid (or near enough same to render the difference ststistically insignificant) And so efficacy can be calculated.
But how effective is a different matter
I would have thought you would consider the difference between efficacy and effectiveness being pointed out as aiding and abetting informed consent. Irrespective of who the person was pointing it out.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that whilst efficacy was 95%, effectiveness was 40%. Might that inform the consent?
Or would you just prefer folk toed a party line in sheep like fashion?
I have no issue whatsoever that efficacy ( the reduction in infections between vaccinated and unvaccinated in the relatively well controlled clinical trial conditions) does not equal real
world effectiveness (not controlled, all comers)and I have stated that it won’t be known until after the vaccinations begin and public health specialists measure that down the line. The high efficacy implies it is likely to be also effective. Even if 90% drops to 40-50, if side effects profile acceptable then that still can be a useful vaccine. Apologies to all if I oversimplified inaccurately in an earlier post.
You are correct sir , Efficacy does not equal effectiveness. WHO have freely available simple slides on this if anyone wants to google it for themselves.
However efficacy is a very useful indicator and should be demonstrated in a trial (and has been done in the case of the first 2 vaccines) before you role out and see how overall effective it eventually is. You can’t have that effectiveness figure ready to go when you start the campaign but it can certainly be used to inform on use down the line and the companies and independent public health specialists and academics will also be measuring it.
But you have repeatedly questioned the clinical trials results as spurious and implied only a handful of the vaccine group may have been exposed and the poor placebo lads were sent of the meat pack. Exposure potential and all other important variables were the same in each group.
(You probably know this but all the methods , protocols and results publicly available now, all known or suspected side effects published to help informed consent)
PS I’m as ‘pro safe vaccine’ as you can get. All scientists, doctors and basically any reasonable people are pro safe vaccine. Pro safe vaccine has nothing to do with causing confusion about transparent clinical trial results.0 -
Just to be clear.
The vaccine does not prevent infection with the coronavirus.
It does not prevent any possible transmission to a person.
What the mRNA vaccines do is trigger an immune response, so that **if** you are infected, then most people won't be as sick.
It is not known yet whether the vaccine prevents ounwards tranmission.
It doesn't alter the basic question being asked, but thanks for the clarification0 -
I think it is fair to say that a lay person probably thinks that the vaccine trials are 'challenge' type trials, so that 95% of the people vaccinated did not contract covid. The difference between illness v infection might not be initially understood fully.
But also the lay person doesn't understand that the vaccinated and control groups have been selected to ensure similarity as much as possible, so that the vaccinated people weren't of an age group or location with significantly less covid exposure than the control group.
But that's the statistics behind why the scientists in the know can talk about it being 95% effective at preventing illness even without challenge trials to deliberately expose people to the virus.
* By lay person I mean my state of knowledge about vaccines before reading this thread"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
They selected 30,000 people. They randomly give some the placebo and some the virus.antiskeptic wrote: »A certain number is each group of 20,000 people will develop Covid. What would the range of cases be?. How would that range appear statistically? Would it be anywhere close to 162? Could it be 50?
They didn't go and give 15000 cruise ship passengers the placebo, and 15000 hermits the vaccine.
This is all supervised by regulators and independent monitoring boards. Give it a rest.0 -
RTE news app main headline this eve regarding the new strain:
“New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NervTag) concluded that the mutant strain identified by Public Health England - known as VUI2020/01 - was spreading more quickly.
"It may be up to 70%(bloody hell) more transmissible than the old variant, the original version of the disease," Mr Johnson told a news conference this afternoon.
This is early data and is subject to review but it is the best that we have at the moment and we have to act on information as we have it because this is now spreading very fast," said Mr Johnson.
I just hope to f***k the following is true:
However, Mr Johnson said there is no reason to believe the new strain is more dangerous or is resistant to vaccines.0 -
RTE must have been wetting themselves with excitement for some fresh doom and gloom.0
-
RTE news app main headline this eve regarding the new strain:
“New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NervTag) concluded that the mutant strain identified by Public Health England - known as VUI2020/01 - was spreading more quickly.
"It may be up to 70%(bloody hell) more transmissible than the old variant, the original version of the disease," Mr Johnson told a news conference this afternoon.
This is early data and is subject to review but it is the best that we have at the moment and we have to act on information as we have it because this is now spreading very fast," said Mr Johnson.
I just hope to f***k the following is true:
However, Mr Johnson said there is no reason to believe the new strain is more dangerous or is resistant to vaccines.
I'd say Boris wouldn't have the slightest notion of spike proteins and how the vaccine works0 -
I have no issue whatsoever that efficacy ( the reduction in infections between vaccinated and unvaccinated in the relatively well controlled clinical trial conditions) does not equal real
world effectiveness (not controlled, all comers)and I have stated that it won’t be known until after the vaccinations begin and public health specialists measure that down the line. The high efficacy implies it is likely to be also effective. Even if 90% drops to 40-50, if side effects profile acceptable then that still can be a useful vaccine. Apologies to all if I oversimplified inaccurately in an earlier post.
It was not so much your post I was picking up on as the understanding of the man on the street. He queues (and clamours in some cases) for a vaccine without being informed.
Now you might say that the information is there, if he is prepared to delve into the doubtlessly wonderful world of statistics to find it. Thus is he informed.
Me? I'd take informed consent to mean 'whatever the dog in the street understands'. Nobody is going to go through the font sized 2 leaflet with them before administering the vaccine.
Nobody is going to tell the that 95% efficacy doesn't mean possibly far less effectiveness.
For example, a person is told (if it could be done) that the vaccine (which they imcorrectly assume is 95% effective) is in fact 55% effective.
Do you think that would affect uptake? In other words, do you believe in informed consent?You are correct sir , Efficacy does not equal effectiveness. WHO have freely available simple slides on this if anyone wants to google it for themselves.
However efficacy is a very useful indicator and should be demonstrated in a trial (and has been done in the case of the first 2 vaccines) before you role out and see how overall effective it eventually is. You can’t have that effectiveness figure ready to go when you start the campaign but it can certainly be used to inform on use down the line and the companies and independent public health specialists and academics will also be measuring it.
I find that a little lame. With 95% efficacy splashed all over the worlds newspapers, where:
"Efficacy is the ability to perform a task to a satisfactory or expected degree. The word comes from the same roots as effectiveness, and it has often been used synonymously, although in pharmacology a distinction is now often made between efficacy and effectiveness."
..folk probably won't be aware of pharma's unique take on the word and will naturally consider the vaccine 95% effective. Pointing them to the WHO website they have little reason to visit strikes as being happy to let them go on supposing as they suppose.But you have repeatedly questioned the clinical trials results as spurious and implied only a handful of the vaccine group may have been exposed and the poor placebo lads were sent of the meat pack. Exposure potential and all other important variables were the same in each group.
I corrected the.meat packer reference. My 'argument' has centred around
a) efficacy vs effectiveness. Some here were under the very impression I have sought to enlighten them about. Its good that you have weighed in in that regard.
b) I have sought to understand the process. Sure, I am inclined to suspect a demonatrably suspect industry. Sure I suspect governments with bigger fish to fry than the vaccine injured. No conspiracy theory is required to fuel that suspicion.
It matters not what my view is, I am as entitled as anyone to ask obvious questions and point out obvious miscomprehension. I don't see governments or newspapers or pharma busting a gut to do so.You probably know this but all the methods , protocols and results publicly available now, all known or suspected side effects published to help informed consent)
PS I’m as ‘pro safe vaccine’ as you can get. All scientists, doctors and basically any reasonable people are pro safe vaccine. Pro safe vaccine has nothing to do with causing confusion about transparent clinical trial results.
I'm not saying you aim to confuse. But on the matter of efficacy vs effectiveness, the public seem to be.
Anyway. 100 x 20000 placebo groups sent out into the world. What do you reckon the spread of cases of Covid would be over that number of groups? And if we assume a normally distributed spread, where would the.middle of the curve land?
If on 162, the number of infected in yhe Pfizer placebk group, theb how is this estsblished?
I won't give my consent for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with this vaccine. But I would nevertheless welcome being informed.0 -
Advertisement
-
It could go the other way too though. People who might be reluctant to travel deciding to fly if they know everyone else on the flight is vaccinated too. I’d say planes would fill far quicker in that scenario tbh.
But look, none of us know for sure, it’s all guesswork.
If your vaccinated why would you care if others are vaccinated or not?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement