需要冷静地研究辉瑞第二针90天后对奥米克戎的保护作用变成负百分比是怎么回事

d
dudaan
楼主 (文学城)

我记得欧洲那个研究说辉瑞的保护作用变成-77%,莫德纳变成-39%。换言之,接种30天后,保护作用明显,但到了90天以后,与不接种者比较,更容易感染。

虽然研究说可能不是辉瑞和莫德纳本身的问题而是接种者行为模式造成的,但这只是一种假设,不太令人信服。

也不要忘了同一个研究指出辉瑞加强针可以恢复保护作用,从-77%变成+54%。

希望有科学可信的分析。

f
fuz
有个说法,叫“按摩数据”, 统计英语也有个术语:rendering data analysis
d
dudaan
我真心不懂,看上面那个据说是国防部的数据,大概也说是第二针三四个月后的作用很难看
f
fuz
加上链接,呼唤统计大师。俺干啥都是半吊子,这种烧脑的事儿干不了
d
dudaan
关键的一段话

"In light of the exponential rise in Omicron cases, these findings highlight the need for massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations," they wrote.

The Pfizer vaccine was 55.2% effective against omicron in the first 30 days after two doses, but that dropped to -76.5% after 90 days, the study found. The Moderna vaccine also showed a steep drop in effectiveness from 36.7% to -39.3% in the same time period.

A Pfizer booster restored vaccine effectiveness to 54.6%, but there was not enough data on a Moderna booster, the researchers said.

The Rogue Review story pointed to the two negative numbers, and said these figures show that those vaccinated with Pfizer are 76.5% more likely to get omicron than the unvaccinated, and that Moderna vaccine recipients are 39.3% more likely to get omicron than the unvaccinated. That’s not what the study concluded.

不是来自原文而是来自评论:https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/01/07/fact-check-what-did-study-show-vaccinated-people-and-omicron/9094349002/

T
TBz
先拿这个烧一下

新冠疫苗和死亡数字的关联

 

d
dudaan
我觉得他们研究的大概就是这个数据

https://bbs.wenxuecity.com/health/1018206.html

 

d
dudaan
你的这个我明白,我只是想知道如果只打两针不打加强针是否更容易感染奥米克戎

不说住院率死亡率这些东西,只说感染。

没看到任何数据能推翻mRNA疫苗对重症和死亡的保护作用。

当然也需要考察加强针90天后的感染率问题。

d
dudaan
最近许多人说带路、亲和之类的我想都是和上面的那些数据相关
b
b3706
这有一个疫苗和死亡率的研究很有意思

它的采样很好,是新西兰,因为防疫好,所以只有疫苗而没有感染,这样就可以看出疫苗的关系。

https://hatchardreport.com/relationship-between-covid-19-vaccination-and-all-cause-mortality/

youtube有个讲解 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVxmAIKjYM4&t=52s

 

 

f
fuz
你同事们打三针得新冠的那几位,打的啥?
周老大
“带路”是有量子力学理论根据的,:)

https://bbs.wenxuecity.com/health/1013020.html

d
dudaan
辉瑞
f
fuz
还好,你打M。阿弥陀佛
d
dudaan
你说的是疑似疫苗的副作用,和主贴无关
S
SwiperTheFox
这是原作者的评论

“VE estimation relies on vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals behaving in a similar fashion in their every-day lives with respect to COVID-19 precautions and exposure to infection risk. It is conceivable that the increasingly small cohort of unvaccinated individuals that remains in Denmark takes further precautions (precisely because they are not well protected), engage less in social activities, etc. Such discrepancies in risk behaviour between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals will lead to an underestimated VE.”

d
dudaan
多谢,这就是我说的行为模式假说,我个人认为不是那么令人信服
j
julie116
你如果看疫苗开打后的住院,icu 高峰点的间隔变小了。这值得关注。再算一下各针间隔和开打时间

说明R0变大?

S
SwiperTheFox
我来评论一下这个图

这个图没有说明疫苗更容易感染;  这个结论的假设是疫苗与不苗的人口比例相当; 

实际上英国苗的人口是不苗是2.5倍, 所以被感染的人多并不奇怪,特别是对变异后的Omicron. 

如果全部人口都打了疫苗, 那么所有被感染的人都会说打了疫苗的,并不能说明疫苗不防止感染。 

实际上同一个报告里的数据显示疫苗有效。

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1047814/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-2-2022.pdf#page=11&zoom=100,53,870

 

S
SwiperTheFox
同一篇报道解释还是很合理的。

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-immunesystem-covid19-vaccines/fact-check-danish-study-did-not-conclude-that-covid-19-vaccines-adversely-impact-immune-systems-or-that-covid-19-vaccines-are-completely-ineffective-against-the-omicron-variant-idUSL1N2TE17B

 

“Denmark was very quick to conduct sequencing and to identify the first generations of Omicron cases in the country. Cases during this period occurred to an exaggerated extent in those who were travelling internationally, and those in the social and professional circles of travellers, and were largely vaccinated. We expect therefore that there was an overrepresentation of vaccinated people among the first generations of Omicron cases identified in Denmark, not because the vaccines weren’t protective, but because the variant hadn’t spread far enough into the general population, including into the unvaccinated population, to make for comparable infection rates.” Dr Hansen told Reuters.

红烧茄子-
似乎mRNA疫苗的长期副作用之一已经显现了,那就是降低了人们的免疫力,必须靠不断打针来提升,否则免疫力变负的。

当然最终被感染后,获得了自然免疫,也许就不必再打了。只是不知道mRNA疫苗会不会永久性损伤人们的免疫力,也许打得越多,损伤越大,这就是我们常提醒的长期风险啊。

f
fuz
嗯,英国人认真
S
SwiperTheFox
请问你这么说的根据?
d
dudaan
按照你的理解,并不是100000完成接种的vs100000未接种的?

而只是未加区别的100000人中的感染数和其中有多少是完成接种的,多少是未完成接种的。

 

d
dudaan
这个有道理
f
fuz
看上面“扫狐”帖中报告中的图六和表十二
阿明.
TA的理解错了,比较的是感染率,分别为打疫苗与未打疫苗。若混在一起无法比较。
阿明.
曾经有德国专家说过打第一针疫苗更容易感染,要第二针才能防护。有点带路的意思。
周老大
哦,那么那些在Omicron处于顶峰的时候劝别人打第一针的是何居心啊,:)