It's depressing that so many journalists (and some academics) are easily distracted by shiny objects (in the form of newly reported Pfizer efficacy "studies"), without (apparently) having read the source data and understanding the implications and limitations. 🙄
Last night @CNN reported (with almost breathless excitement), that a new Pfizer study in the @NEJM showed that a single dose of Pfizer vaccine is 92% effective.
Is that a fact?
This "new" study, contains NO new data.
It is a letter, NOT a paper.
It simply repeats the same statistical "trick" the JCVI did, calculating the efficacy of the 1st dose only after ignoring the data from the first 14 days after it was given.
If one believes the official statistics (and the associated interpretation being made by politicians), there is currently dramatic evidence that vaccination is vastly reducing deaths in Scottish care homes.
In both my training as a scientist and during my professional career in IT, I looked at a LOT of data.
A key requirement in both of these fields is the need for "interesting" results, to be reproducible.
If results can't be reproduced, that suggests a systemic error.
For example, if one was conducting clinical trials of a new vaccine across two countries, which had similar background infection rates, but the results showed:
Vaccine in Country A has 95% efficacy
Vaccine in Country B has 25% efficacy
A thread on how the UK strategy relating to Pfizer vaccine rollout (i.e. 12 weeks between doses, rather than the 3 weeks followed in the Phase 3 clinical trial), places the most vulnerable in society, at PARTICULAR risk.
"Overall, BNT162b2 elicited HIGHER antigen-binding and neutralizing responses in YOUNGER participants (Figure 6) than in older participants (Figure 7). The BOOST effect AFTER receiving Dose 2 was MOST PRONOUNCED at the 30 μg dose level for OLDER participants."
The "hope" that @krishgm mentions is forlorn, in this case.
A thread in which I prove (using ONLY published Pfizer trial data) that the UK CMOs and JCVI have not so much ignored the science, as left it bleeding at the roadside.
From the moment, the decision was announced to delay 2nd vaccine doses, I've felt uneasy.
This is not my field of expertise, but I trained as a scientist (two chemistry degrees), worked professionally in IT, and understand the importance of testing.
My principal concern was about the Pfizer vaccine.
As vaccines go, it's "new tech", the first mRNA vaccine and the results are stunning.
Perhaps one should be cautious about deviating from a clinical trial procedure, at least until there is greater experience of mRNA vaccines?