IMO the only measure of real effectiveness is to PCR test all test subjects at 7 day intervals so you can also count all asymptomatic individuals.
Because a vaccine that makes you asymptomatic in 95% of cases weeks after application but still a spreader, is asking for trouble.
No vaccine has ever been developed under such conditions. Why suddenly change the rules?
As I see it, there are no rules set in stone.
The framework is determined by the characteristics of the diseases, by the companies pursuing the vaccines.
In other diseases, the infection may be symptomatic in all cases, asymptomatic spread could have been rare and chances of reinfection low.
Covid-19 is proportionally deadly and survivable with lasting disability, highly infectious, has chances of reinfection and spreads asymptomatically.
The studies should hence reflect those characteristics.
As shown in earlier posts, interim or final analysis of the ongoing vaccine studies has so far measured efficacy within 4 weeks on a very small part of the test population, and some of the test population haven't even gotten to their second shot of the vaccine.
4 weeks is a period just double the incubation period. Some test subjects may have been infected from before the trial began.
Did they take a PCR test of the individuals before they started the trial at all?
At the current rate, the placebo group may have unknowingly been infected from before the trial began.
Also, testing within the study population seems to be triggered only by mild symptoms or a combination of symptoms, while symptoms soon after the shots are being ignored. So the vaccines may be effective enough to avoid triggering PCR tests, but not enough to stop lasting light infections.
As we get more data, and the studies get longer, I expect the efficacy and effectiveness within actual populations to be much lower.
However, as shown in the above post and link, these studies have endpoints too short to measure the long-term efficacy of the vaccines, while efficacy may reduce significantly after 3 months or several exposures to the virus.
As a result, the vaccines may be creating a false sense of security for the vaccinated individuals.
Doctors should also pay particular attention to the side effects of the vaccines as they are not mild.
High risk groups may be particularly sensitive to them, with many sensitive enough that taking the vaccine and getting out of sheltering may not be warranted over sheltering and avoiding exposure.
Did Pfizer really miss their 32 and 62 endpoints and go straight to 92 or were the results inconvenient at the earlier endpoints?
They missed them because they were in discussions with the FDA. By the time they agreed to drop the 32-event endpoint and proceed to 64, they had already passed 64. Believe it or not, Pfizer does not get to do the unblinding. A Data Monitoring Board does it. The folks at Pfizer did not know the results before the DMB met. This is standard practice. So if you're going to have strong opinions, then you should at least know how the process works. All of this information is publicly available.
As said earlier, it is apparent that the studies didn't start with a PCR test. So they most certainly have started with infected individuals in the test population. So the vaccine may be triggering a response sufficient to subside the symptoms enough that they are avoiding the criteria set to trigger PCR testing, skewing the efficacy.
With the virus confirmed in 1.5% of the US population, and the studies triaging PCR testing based on pre-determined and (by company) different sets of symptoms, we are getting a very poor picture of efficacy. This fits the definition of a rushed process and does not give me confidence at all.
A personal anecdote.
I'm convinced that I had Covid-19 in early December 2019.
Were you in Wuhan at the time? If not, then no you did not.
The Italian National Cancer Institute has found Covid-19 antibodies in blood samples from September 2019 collected for a cancer research study.
My symptoms fit with covid-19 and I remember thinking "What the heck was that?" after getting better. Plus my mother's subsequent confirmed lung infection for which she was briefly hospitalised does seem to confirm. My mother underwent a nasal swab around Jan 20th 2020 but the result was never returned, they may not have had the reagents to check it or they may have voluntarily obscured the result.
I remember seeing about 15% of the hospital room doors of the geriatric department taped up with nurses in hazmat suits entering them when I went to see my mother, and the doctor suggesting my mother to sick it out at home due to a high volume of highly infectious lung infections in the hospital. "Staying here may be worse for her".
Something was going on back then for sure.
Less than 2 months later, we were in full lockdown.
https://www.reuters.com/article/health- ... NKBN27V0KH
ROME (Reuters) - The new coronavirus was circulating in Italy since September 2019, a study by the National Cancer Institute (INT) of the Italian city of Milan shows, signaling that COVID-19 might have spread beyond China earlier than previously thought.
Italian researchers told Reuters in March that they reported a higher than usual number of cases of severe pneumonia and flu in Lombardy in the last quarter of 2019 in a sign that the new coronavirus might have circulated earlier than previously thought.
Regardless of disagreements, I don't know what kind of doctor you are, but if you are coming in contact with (potential) Covid-19 patients, I pray for your staying safe and healthy.