7/n But here's the thing - this trial was only 6 weeks long. Fewer than 3% of the total population got COVID-19 in that time, compared to at least 30% of the entire of Israel over the last 12 months
-
Show this thread
-
8/n This means that the NNTV from this study is INHERENTLY MISLEADING unless you assume that vaccines will stop working entirely after the 6-week period (obviously false)
5 replies 17 retweets 326 likesShow this thread -
9/n If you extrapolate this efficacy out linearly, and assume that the RELATIVE risk of death after vaccination remains similar over time, at 52 weeks you'd get an NNTV of 1/((0.00006/6)*52) = 1 per 1,960
5 replies 12 retweets 194 likesShow this thread -
10/n If you assume that everyone who stays alive will get infected without a vaccine eventually - which is a fact - the ABSOLUTE risk difference approaches the RELATIVE risk difference, and so NNTV = 1/0.84 = 1.2 I.e. 1 life saved for every 1.2 vaccines given!
21 replies 15 retweets 231 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
No, it’s not a fact. There exists pre immunity and cross-immunity. Why are so many of you falling in the fallacy of assuming “everyone” will get infected as if natural immunity doesn’t exist? That is plainly false! https://idp.nature.com/authorize?response_type=cookie&client_id=grover&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41586-020-2598-9 … https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22036-z …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Hache_Berlin @GidMK
I stopped reading the thread about here. It's a childish simplification of the complexity in epidemiology and immunology to state that everyone is eventually going to have every transmittable disease without a vaccine.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Josephs42921408 @eliabennis and
True, but it's also fair to say that SARS-Cov-2 is highly transmissable, so a large percentage will likely get infected at some point. I think his critique of the paper makes perfect sense though. It's crap. So was the FDA not announcing the ARR from the trials. Time matters...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MakingMoneyFast @Josephs42921408 and
The paper is not crap. There might be points open for discussion, but calling it crap is simplistic. Health nerd is a pharma shill and will cherry pick all he can to discredit the article and perpetuate the narrative. Follow
@waukema to learn more about the data they used.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Hache_Berlin @MakingMoneyFast and
Who do you think is paying me? Please be as specific as possible
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @MakingMoneyFast and
Find my answer in the quoted tweet.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
"Pharma shill" is a tedious insult, but if you're accusing me of being paid by some corporation presumably you have evidence that this is the case, or at least a specific company that is paying me that you can identify So who is it?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.