Thread by @ElonBachman

Finally starting to pay attention to vax data

Am I incorrect that Pfizer and Moderna RCTs showed no mortality reduction in the trial arm, and that claims of vax efficacy depend on looking at the double vaxxed cohort while ignoring dropouts after Dose 1?

I assume it can't possibly be this bad, so somebody tell me what I'm missing.

Not sure which one below is Pfizer and which Moderna. Also I don't think about trial design on a regular basis, so maybe I'm missing something obvious.

This visualization is good

h/t @Andy27646517

Even the Double Dosed saw no reduction in mortality

So what exactly was so great about the Pfizer trial?

Now, I imagine the "bull" case here is that "the vax was safe among healthy subjects, and it reduced *symptomatic* cases a lot, so it will likely reduce deaths among the elderly"

And I don't know the data well enough to evaluate that conclusion.

Ok, from a follower. I guess the impressive finding here was the reduction in severe cases:

On the other hand, their definition of "severe COVID" appears to be what a normal person would call "mild COVID"

https://twitter.com/EtanG33557750/status/1444524646137843713?s=20

Ok, looks like that bullet point summary was just poorly phrased. Sounds like a diagnosis of "severe" did require symptoms we'd all agree are severe:

But overall (including subjects who didn't get COVID), the vaxxed arm had more Serious Adverse Events

h/t @EtanG33557750

Whether a reduction in severe COVID is worth these SAEs depends on your chances of catching COVID (and depends on vax efficacy not fading)