Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
If he did he should publish the results or make them available.It's quotes like this that really bother me
At the NPHET briefing on Thursday, Prime Time asked Professor Philip Nolan, Chair of the Irish Epidemiological Modelling Advisory Group, if he'd run the models without the step change in social mixing included, and what the outcome would be.
"I did, and the answer is: it’s modest," he said. "Frankly, it is anywhere between Alpha-only and the optimistic scenario."
So we are only seeing a 'modest' change in the forecasts by not opening indoor hospitality on the 19th. Given that they are now seeing a risk (but won't tell us the probability) of anything from Alpha only outbreak with hospitality closed to a more severe outbreak than Alpha if opened, why aren't we locking down again? The answer has to be the probability of an outbreak like January to be so unlikely that NPHET are prepared to take the risk.
So the question still remains. How much extra risk would we have taken on by opening up indoor hospitality on the 19th? They have obviously modelled it.
That's what should happen but we are in "emergency mode" now.Other countries model on their own prevalent conditions.
I am amazed at the Vaccine centre at the Aviva is been halted to facilitate a rugby international. Where is the priority in this instance.
Surely there are rugby grounds in the country which this match could have been used. I wonder how many unvaccinated people will be at this match.
Baffling.
No, efficacy only applies to controlled trial conditions where the non-control groups are exposed to sufficient virion load to contract the virus. You're talking about contagion outside of trial conditions, so you need to talk in term of effectiveness.95% efficacy does not mean that 95% of the population are protected from getting covid and that 5% have zero protection. It means the chance of getting Covid or severe Covid is reduced by 95% compared to an unvaccinated population. 100% of the unvaccinated population will not get Covid. It will only be small % of that population
What powers do they have?It's not really nphet that is the issue but the power that they have been given by the government and media, why ?
No, efficacy only applies to controlled trial conditions where the non-control groups are exposed to sufficient virion load to contract the virus. You're talking about contagion outside of trial conditions, so you need to talk in term of effectiveness.
I didn't mention what Philip Nolan said, I simply explained the efficacy term should not be applied to individuals or non-trial conditions.Leo, we are talking about what Philip Nolan said and what you agreed with when you are saying:
I didn't mention what Philip Nolan said, I simply explained the efficacy term should not be applied to individuals or non-trial conditions.
But even with corrected figures this statement is still wrong, the vaccine reduced the infection rate by 95%, that's all anyone needs to know and was widely publicized data by Pfizer from last November. Why did you go to all the rounds to say that it reduced it from 0.74% to 0.04%, even after correction, it's still a 95% reduction its "classic damn lives and statistics stuff" you were trying to engage inThe Pfizer trial found an infection rate of 0.74% in the placebo group and 0.04% in the vaccinated group.
Therefore, the vaccine reduced the infection rate by 0.7%.
Is there methodology used to understand the effects of vaccines, they hardly ignore it and it must be an important variable.Yeah 95% efficacy is the important data. The reduction in covid rate of 0.7% is a bit misleading as it doesn't capture scaling and the knock on effect of having fewer cases in the community which reduces the r rate etc. That's why scientists use efficacy as the truest measure of a vaccine.
Yes, healthcare practitioners report all side effects and these are counted, analysed etc for patterns. Eg you get a vaccine and 1 week later you get a rash, your nurse or doc will report thisIs there methodology used to understand the effects of vaccines, they hardly ignore it and it must be an important variable.
Edit; not in the trials but in the general population.
Efficacy DOES NOT apply to the population at large, it's a measure that refers to candidates in trial conditions.Your understanding that you stated is incorrect. 95% efficacy does not mean 95% of the population are protected and 5% aren't.
The 95% efficacy rates quoted IS NOT a measure of how sick someone will become! Pfizer efficacy there is ~100%.It means people with the vaccine are 95% less likely to catch Covid or severe covid than non vaccinated people.
Yeah 95% efficacy is the important data. The reduction in covid rate of 0.7% is a bit misleading as it doesn't capture scaling and the knock on effect of having fewer cases in the community which reduces the r rate etc. That's why scientists use efficacy as the truest measure of a vaccine.
Is there methodology used to understand the effects of vaccines, they hardly ignore it and it must be an important variable.
Edit; not in the trials but in the general population.
Efficacy DOES NOT apply to the population at large, it's a measure that refers to candidates in trial conditions.
The 95% efficacy rates quoted IS NOT a measure of how sick someone will become! Pfizer efficacy there is ~100%.
So you're back confusing efficacy with effectiveness?The last I heard about vaccine effectiveness was 96/97 % against infection, serious illness or death and about 90/91% against asymptomatic infection. Though not sure with the Delta variant what it is now.
It's 100% per CDC criteria, 95.3% for FDA.The Pfizer vaccine does not have 100% efficacy in adults with regard severe illness (as defined by the FDA).
Are you referring to the phase 3 clinical trial? If using FDA criteria, the placebo group had 21 severe cases versus 1 in the vaccinated group. Using CDC criterial, there were 32 cases of severe disease in the control group versus 0 among the vaccinated.Even at the initial trial, there was 1 severe case in the vaccinated group versus 3 severe cases in the placebo group. It had 100% efficacy in trials for 12-18 year olds.
So you're back confusing efficacy with effectiveness?
It's 100% per CDC criteria, 95.3% for FDA.
Are you referring to the phase 3 clinical trial? If using FDA criteria, the placebo group had 21 severe cases versus 1 in the vaccinated group. Using CDC criterial, there were 32 cases of severe disease in the control group versus 0 among the vaccinated.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?