Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine protects people for at least six months and likely longer -- even against new variants, researchers reported Thursday. Protection against the Delta variant, now dominant across the US, barely waned, the National Institutes of Health-led team found. The team will continue to look for evidence of protection beyond six months.
"High levels of binding antibodies recognizing all tested variants, including B.1.351 (Beta) and B.1.617.2 (Delta), were maintained in all subjects over this time period," immunologist Nicole Doria-Rose and colleagues at the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases wrote in their report, published in the journal Science.
They tested blood from 24 fully vaccinated volunteers at several time points -- four weeks after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, and then at three points after they were considered fully vaccinated with two doses -- up to six months out.
elec2020 wrote:https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/12/health/moderna-vaccine-protection/index.htmlModerna's Covid-19 vaccine protects people for at least six months and likely longer -- even against new variants, researchers reported Thursday. Protection against the Delta variant, now dominant across the US, barely waned, the National Institutes of Health-led team found. The team will continue to look for evidence of protection beyond six months.
"High levels of binding antibodies recognizing all tested variants, including B.1.351 (Beta) and B.1.617.2 (Delta), were maintained in all subjects over this time period," immunologist Nicole Doria-Rose and colleagues at the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases wrote in their report, published in the journal Science.
They tested blood from 24 fully vaccinated volunteers at several time points -- four weeks after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, and then at three points after they were considered fully vaccinated with two doses -- up to six months out.
This is what pasts as credible research? A sample size of 24? To say definitively that now Moderna protects against new variants. Wow. How scientific standards have fallen due to the desperation to prove that these vaccines are 'better than slice bread'.
Where's my previous post? What is an acceptable sample size? You keep bicthin' and moanin' but not solvin'.elec2020 wrote:https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/12/health/moderna-vaccine-protection/index.htmlModerna's Covid-19 vaccine protects people for at least six months and likely longer -- even against new variants, researchers reported Thursday. Protection against the Delta variant, now dominant across the US, barely waned, the National Institutes of Health-led team found. The team will continue to look for evidence of protection beyond six months.
"High levels of binding antibodies recognizing all tested variants, including B.1.351 (Beta) and B.1.617.2 (Delta), were maintained in all subjects over this time period," immunologist Nicole Doria-Rose and colleagues at the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases wrote in their report, published in the journal Science.
They tested blood from 24 fully vaccinated volunteers at several time points -- four weeks after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, and then at three points after they were considered fully vaccinated with two doses -- up to six months out.
This is what pasts as credible research? A sample size of 24? To say definitively that now Moderna protects against new variants. Wow. How scientific standards have fallen due to the desperation to prove that these vaccines are 'better than slice bread'.
Mmoney607 wrote:How come the clinical trials did not show the need to booster shots?
How come the fda gave emergency use authorisation to vaccine that that didn't not work on the immunocompromised?
How many immunocompromised persons took the vaccine, thought they were protected and then died?
Now that the vaccines have been shown to be ineffective against the delta variant https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer- ... udy-2021-8, why is the EUA still valid? The data submitted from the clinical trials showed a 95% efficacy rate.
Mmoney607 wrote:How come the clinical trials did not show the need to booster shots?
How come the fda gave emergency use authorisation to vaccine that that didn't not work on the immunocompromised?
How many immunocompromised persons took the vaccine, thought they were protected and then died?
Now that the vaccines have been shown to be ineffective against the delta variant https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer- ... udy-2021-8, why is the EUA still valid? The data submitted from the clinical trials showed a 95% efficacy rate.
Where's my previous post? What is an acceptable sample size? You keep bitchin' and moanin' but not solvin'.elec2020 wrote:Research is used to inform/support policy decisions. Any policy decision that follows on a quite obviously flawed piece of research is dubious. Why are these studies suddenly receiving recognition when anyone who does empirical research knows that you cannot make reasonable assesments using such a small sample size? I dare you to find any research from a credible journal with a sample size of 24.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:Mmoney607 wrote:How come the clinical trials did not show the need to booster shots?
How come the fda gave emergency use authorisation to vaccine that that didn't not work on the immunocompromised?
How many immunocompromised persons took the vaccine, thought they were protected and then died?
Now that the vaccines have been shown to be ineffective against the delta variant https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer- ... udy-2021-8, why is the EUA still valid? The data submitted from the clinical trials showed a 95% efficacy rate.
SARS-CoV-2 is a Novel Coronavirus.
That means it is new and new data is being collected from it that was not previously available.
There are also mutations resulting in numerous variants across the globe.
Each mutation occurs in different populations. Gamma / P1 variant was discovered in Brazil and Delta in India.
Vaccines work to build your immunity by various methods. There are different type of vaccines.
Immunocompromised means having an impaired immune system. That can mean many different things depending on the patient.
Lower efficacy does not mean ineffective.
In a study of more than 50,000 patients in July 2021 in the Mayo Clinic Health System, researchers found the effectiveness of Moderna is still 76% effective against the Delta variant.
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 021-08-09/
Mmoney607 wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:Mmoney607 wrote:How come the clinical trials did not show the need to booster shots?
How come the fda gave emergency use authorisation to vaccine that that didn't not work on the immunocompromised?
How many immunocompromised persons took the vaccine, thought they were protected and then died?
Now that the vaccines have been shown to be ineffective against the delta variant https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer- ... udy-2021-8, why is the EUA still valid? The data submitted from the clinical trials showed a 95% efficacy rate.
SARS-CoV-2 is a Novel Coronavirus.
That means it is new and new data is being collected from it that was not previously available.
There are also mutations resulting in numerous variants across the globe.
Each mutation occurs in different populations. Gamma / P1 variant was discovered in Brazil and Delta in India.
Vaccines work to build your immunity by various methods. There are different type of vaccines.
Immunocompromised means having an impaired immune system. That can mean many different things depending on the patient.
Lower efficacy does not mean ineffective.
In a study of more than 50,000 patients in July 2021 in the Mayo Clinic Health System, researchers found the effectiveness of Moderna is still 76% effective against the Delta variant.
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 021-08-09/
Yes it's novel and we have been able to stratify persons by risk since February 2020. So why the continued one size fits all, Carter Blanche approaches, including vaccination? People with certain risk factors and compromised immune systems were always the persons being seriously affected by covid, it seems that even with vaccines, that remains the case.
It will continue to evolve and selection pressures would cause the variants that can infect the vaccinated to survive. As vaccines are update the virus will just evolve again.
Moderna is only one vaccine. If Pfizer drop to below 50%, what will happen with the others?
adnj wrote:Where's my previous post? What is an acceptable sample size? You keep bicthin' and moanin' but not solvin'.elec2020 wrote:Research is used to inform/support policy decisions. Any policy decision that follows on a quite obviously flawed piece of research is dubious. Why are these studies suddenly receiving recognition when anyone who does empirical research knows that you cannot make reasonable assesments using such a small sample size? I dare you to find any research from a credible journal with a sample size of 24.
It bothers me that so many scientists are publishing so many papers, they can't get their sample sizes correct and you are the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD TO SEE A PROBLEM.
I see a problem, too.
The study involving Sinopharm's BBIBP-CorV vaccine, which looked at data from February through June at a time when Peru was fighting a brutal second-wave of infections fuelled by the Lambda and Gamma variants of the coronavirus, was conducted on nearly 400,000 frontline health workers in live conditions.
elec2020 wrote:https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/12/health/moderna-vaccine-protection/index.htmlModerna's Covid-19 vaccine protects people for at least six months and likely longer -- even against new variants, researchers reported Thursday. Protection against the Delta variant, now dominant across the US, barely waned, the National Institutes of Health-led team found. The team will continue to look for evidence of protection beyond six months.
"High levels of binding antibodies recognizing all tested variants, including B.1.351 (Beta) and B.1.617.2 (Delta), were maintained in all subjects over this time period," immunologist Nicole Doria-Rose and colleagues at the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases wrote in their report, published in the journal Science.
They tested blood from 24 fully vaccinated volunteers at several time points -- four weeks after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, and then at three points after they were considered fully vaccinated with two doses -- up to six months out.
This is what pasts as credible research? A sample size of 24? To say definitively that now Moderna protects against new variants. Wow. How scientific standards have fallen due to the desperation to prove that these vaccines are 'better than slice bread'.
Empirical studies are definitive if and only if the undesirable event can be contained to the control group only.elec2020 wrote:adnj wrote:Where's my previous post? What is an acceptable sample size? You keep bicthin' and moanin' but not solvin'.elec2020 wrote:Research is used to inform/support policy decisions. Any policy decision that follows on a quite obviously flawed piece of research is dubious. Why are these studies suddenly receiving recognition when anyone who does empirical research knows that you cannot make reasonable assesments using such a small sample size? I dare you to find any research from a credible journal with a sample size of 24.
It bothers me that so many scientists are publishing so many papers, they can't get their sample sizes correct and you are the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD TO SEE A PROBLEM.
I see a problem, too.
Empirical research involves running econometrics/simulations/statistical models on samples of target populations to identify/measure something of interest. To make sure that your sample best represents that target population you must: (i) ensure that it captures key characteristics and; (ii) have enough observations to deal with issues like; bias; outliers; ambiguous information; duplicate records, etc. while allowing you to accurately capture trends and patterns within the data. In empirical research, there is no consensus on what is the best sample size. The argument is always to get as much observations as possible over a significant period of time due to things like trend, seasonality, structural breaks, etc. The minimum standard is what is known as the 'rule of ten' (in some cases it is even 'the rule of twenty') which calls for ten observations for each variable but that has been criticised for being too relaxed. Anyway, like I said before, if you are ok with using samples that capture 0.001 per cent of the target population then fine.
edit:
you see this research, with 400,000 observations is, imo, way more credible than those posted recently.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ ... 021-08-13/The study involving Sinopharm's BBIBP-CorV vaccine, which looked at data from February through June at a time when Peru was fighting a brutal second-wave of infections fuelled by the Lambda and Gamma variants of the coronavirus, was conducted on nearly 400,000 frontline health workers in live conditions.
elec2020 wrote:have a good day k. tired of talking about things I knew nothing about
rexsmith wrote:All those who took the AstraZenica, how long after taking the vaccine you started feeling the side effects, I took mine this morning around 8am and yet to feel any side effect.
Kenjo wrote:adnj wrote:Seems like someone hit a nerve.RedVEVO wrote:Kenjo wrote:
Half of those for Venezuelans then
And what is the problem ? Chances are you are unvaccinated .
How does it affect YOU personally ?
T&T were given the vaccine FREE you most esteemed idiot
I feel he has a pregnant vene and that has him anxious
rexsmith wrote:All those who took the AstraZenica, how long after taking the vaccine you started feeling the side effects, I took mine this morning around 8am and yet to feel any side effect.
rexsmith wrote:All those who took the AstraZenica, how long after taking the vaccine you started feeling the side effects, I took mine this morning around 8am and yet to feel any side effect.
When did you get your shot?shake d livin wake d dead wrote:So here I am at St Augustine Private because chest pains in meh arse...facepalm
Did an ecg, they took 4 blood samples to check for clots etc. Would update accordingly
shake d livin wake d dead wrote:So here I am at St Augustine Private because chest pains in meh arse...facepalm
Did an ecg, they took 4 blood samples to check for clots etc. Would update accordingly
st7 wrote:shake d livin wake d dead wrote:So here I am at St Augustine Private because chest pains in meh arse...facepalm
Did an ecg, they took 4 blood samples to check for clots etc. Would update accordingly
hope iz nothing bad.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Dohplaydat, Google [Bot] and 116 guests