Wow! Good news! Pfizer press release says vaccine 90% effective at preventing symptomatic #COVID19!

If results hold, this is a very good efficacy for a vaccine, higher than I was expecting, by far.

From this, we can be cautiously optimistic!

1/

nytimes.com/2020/11/09/hea…
We do have to be cautious in interpreting these early results (from a press release) and we don’t know if same level of protection will persist long-term or if this is driven a lot by early effects more than robust immune memory

Nevertheless, this is a positive data point

2/
A couple of other items we will need to look out for

Even it protects from symptomatic disease, does it also protect from onward transmission?

The assumption is it would largely do this (and this would underpin herd immunity). But blocking transmission isn’t a sure bet

3/
We also don’t have data from the press release on how it works in the elderly / most vulnerable

If it does not work well (often immune responses go down in elderly) then we need to be careful in considering it’s role to protect elderly. And hopefully it blocks transmission

4/
Many other considerations but other big one is how it will be distributed. 20M doses by end of year. These may go to whole of world, not just 1 country. Allocation/ distribution will mean that vaccines are NOT a month away. Probably not 6 months away for most.

5/
With those considerations in mind, 90% effective is a very very good early phase three result for the Pfizer vaccine. I’m hopeful. So many questions remain...

But this is a cause to have hope and see a faint light in an otherwise dark #COVID19 winter tunnel we are entering.
Also, here is a terrific thread from @nataliexdean on the topic and at the end of that thread there is an even better thread that she wrote a couple months ago that outlines details of vaccine efficacy, measurement and more.
Also, for those concerned w details... efficacy is the correct term I should have used and NYT should have used... if being technical. Efficacy is from blinded trials like these. The real world “effect” may be different. I use effect here bc many people won’t know efficacy

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Mina

Michael Mina Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @michaelmina_lab

11 Nov
No No No No!!!

This paper represents what's going wrong w PCR testing!

Fig shows what is referred to as "False Negative Rate" of PCR since diagnosis

First glance you think - Whoa! SO many False Negatives!! BUT just.... no!

Please read on.

1/

medrxiv.org/content/10.110… Image
In this paper they define a “False Negative” as a PCR test that turns negative and then has another positive after it.
OK. So you’re probably thinking – yeah… that makes sense.

2/
To interpret this – you must ask what was the Ct value of the positives that came after and, if available, the Ct values of the false negatives that were missed….

Please read on, it’s important to understand this.

3/
Read 8 tweets
11 Nov
Moving in right direction to reverse outbreaks

Here's how:

At-home frequent rapid tests

10M/day ->

pool 2 ppl/test ->

20M ppl tested/day ->

Ea house tests 1x/wk ->

140M ppl tested/wk!! ->

Herd effects: R << 1 ->

RAPIDLY SLOWS SPREAD in US

1/

medtechdive.com/news/bidens-co…
This plan can work with only 10M paper strip antigen tests per day in whole of US

US Govn't can produce / fund these tests. Ship to participating households. 20 paper strip tests per household...

3 are different (but look same) and are for rapidly confirming positives.

2/
We do NOT need all people to "buy into" the program. These tests are used in private (think... next to toothbrush) and need only half of a community to decide to participate.

So if 50% of people don't want to - they don't need to. Not mandatory... the plan still works!

3/
Read 24 tweets
10 Nov
NEW on Rapid Tests!

Exceptional data that should help path to at-home highly accurate rapid tests

In over 860 samples tested w ⁦@AbbottNews⁩ BinaxNOW, only ONE was falsely positive! The Specificity was > 99.8%!

Why is this so important... and what else happened here

1/ Image
First: here is the pre-print

medrxiv.org/content/10.110…

Which @apoorva_nyc covered briefly recently prior to the study release

nytimes.com/2020/10/15/hea…

2/
Second, we are so frequently talking about sensitivity bc no one wants to miss a case (will come back to this...) but what is equally or even more important when we consider frequent rapid antigen tests to suppress outbreaks with millions of them daily is SPECIFICTY

3/
Read 11 tweets
8 Nov
Frequent testing is needed to detect people early before infecting others. They must be highly scalable and for buy in, very convenient - i.e. home use

10M Rapid tests/day (i.e. antigen bc scalable / simple) can form the foundation to build back economy

theatlantic.com/health/archive…
Frequent tests alone won’t be the end all be all of this pandemic. Not by a long shot. These can greatly reduce odds of transmission - when used en masse, odds of onward transmission (i.e. Rt) can plummet.

To work, also need huge social/economic safety nets, + masks/distancing.
Although new administration will not officially start till January, we have options now. @JoeBiden and team led by @vivek_murthy can start now to engage manufacturing and begin planning/building these at scale w promise of payment once in office, as one example.
Read 5 tweets
7 Nov
On frequent wide scale rapid testing programs as foundation to slow #COVID19

“Total cost, in tens of billions, would still be far less than the many trillions of dollars of... continued economic loss”

True!

(One comment about the headline...
1/x)
forbes.com/sites/williamh…
Headline says as much as 1M Americans getting COVID daily. This is based on a back of the envelope calculation

We know that only 10% of cases may be diagnosed. So if we have 100k diagnosed daily, then the thinking is that x10 = 1 million

But this misses a crucial piece

2/x
Even though 100k+ new cases DETECTED daily, and we can multiply by 10 for underdiagnosis and get 1M... this is not NEW cases happening daily. This is prevalence of virus positivity daily....

To convert to daily INCIDENCE (Ie new infections daily) takes another step

3/x
Read 6 tweets
7 Nov
Adoption of strategies that aim to allow people to test themselves, privately,simply, at home, 1-2x/week could help suppress outbreaks quickly. Especially in context of other public health measures.

~10M/day to achieve herd effects and drop incidence
healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hbl…
We don’t need perfect compliance, at all. We just need decent compliance - we can achieve this. Like herd immunity, we don’t need this to be everyone, just enough people to drop R<1. I estimate 10% of people in a community would test at home per day. So need not have perfection
We still need reporting so public health officials can keep track

No problem... we work w Google, Apple and whoever else to make voluntary reporting easy as a FaceTime call. If I can see my twin brother 2000 miles away w the push of a button, I should be able to report a result
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!