I just watched this interview in Turkish and it has been mistranslated. Dr. Sahin says they do expect 70-75% protection against symptomatic illness for B.1.617.2 variant, but he does NOT say "up to". He says it's not a hard number as they're still testing and will know more soon.https://twitter.com/GabrielScally/status/1395697659953008643 …
-
-
Let me emphasize. This was not a precise number provided in a precise manner. For all I can tell from how it went down, he might’ve meant his estimate for minimum efficacy. Regardless, he immediately said don’t really know yet, and we’ll know better in a few weeks. No news here.https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1395819531680075778 …
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And is there any indication that against the variants they still aren't close to 100% effective at "make COVID yet another common cold Coronavirus"?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is it realistic to expect a similar % drop in efficacy in Astrazeneca, say, from its lower baseline?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The problem is not everyone has Biontech vaccine. Indian variant may render Sinovac vaccine irrelevant
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s not “slightly” reduced ability, it’s 5-6 times reduced ability
-
Exactly, 75% effective means 5 times less effective than 95% effective. Essentially 1/4 chance when exposed vs a 1/20 chance. The gaslighting on this needs to stop.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It doesn’t imply it at all, correct. A 75% projected figure puts this in the ballpark of B.1.351 (South African). We can extrapolate from the recent Qatar study and the Nature study on correlates of protection that this would still suggest close to 100% against severe disease.
-
I'll do one better and include a direct link to the relevant figure from the Nature article. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8/figures/3 … If truly 75%, then efficacy against severe disease is probably something like 97%. The relationship isn't linear, so with 80-85% it's close to 100% severe.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Is he saying 75% relative to efficacy with the 'wild' Coronavirus, or 75% efficacy in general? i.e. if say 85% is the efficacy vs wild variant, is he implying 75%*85% = 64% or just 75%? Public health England published this table yesterday based on actual vaccinations. Thanks!pic.twitter.com/GMinj2vZJJ
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
thank you, i imagine this is tiring :)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.