Hi SciShow. It would be nice and responsible if you reported, considering vaccines, cases of blood clot. Currently scientific data says that it gives you a bigger chance of dying than from the actual disease, if you are a young person. Your viewers are mostly that, even if they are not it seems like a big enough news considering what else have been reported. Currently it's AstraZeneca. numbers are one in 60,000 for only one dose and second one brings the same chance again. You can recheck that on any scientific government health website of Canada. And the fact that there is a bigger chance of dying from it than the actual disease you can recheck on any Norway scientific health official government website. Thank you very much for thinking about your viewers especially when their lives are in danger. Ps smaller occurrences of blood clot maybe much more frequent and unscientific but very well informed assumption would be that they might occur 10 times more frequently since nature doesn't work like that, it doesn't magically stop at serious cases. That brings it in around one in 3,000 if you get both vaccines which is a really high number in my opinion. Thanks again.
As a kid I was allergic to everything I got the Moderna vaccine I have gotten sick with some stomach bugs 🐛 😩 but I have that compromised immune system you heard about I've been exposed to a lot of people and have not died 😃 yeah get vaccinated please its not a trump conspiracy its your life please take it seriously half Vancouver BC covid death this year we're vaccinated seniors we are still in the midst of this thing bless you if you've lost someone to covid. my PTSD counselor to help me deal with my mom being killed by a medical transport accidentally just lost her husband to covid its far reaching please take it seriously please 🙏 💔 we're not out of the wood's yet God bless you
They do talk more about it. Data is available, just not on mainstream media. With millions of people getting their shots, we now know a lot more about which ones are more effective against what strains, which are better at preventing reinfection/severe cases/death, and which ones aren't that useful at all. Oh, and side effects too! We have some of those as well.
Didn't the FDA say they'd only approve vaccines with a minimum 50% efficacy? Are you saying they _didn't_ outline standardized criteria for how that number must be calculated?
Gonna go ahead and answer even though it has been up for a while. FDA required at least 50% efficacy at preventing severe infection to consider a vaccine for emergency approval (this was for covid, in other medical emergencies the value can be different). Anything that showed that level of performance or greater could be submitted to be evaluated for emergency approval and later on move on to full approval. As options that surpassed that baseline value started to go through the requirements for emergency approval (or full approval) increased. As far as I know that baseline is still up for a given vaccines data to be submitted, but they will need to match or outperform the currently available vaccines in one way or another for a good chance at approval (faster to produce, easier to store, less side effects, longer immunity.....)
Wait a minute. If J&J has 66% when counting only moderate and severe cases, it means that the efficacy would go even further down if they count all symptomatic cases like Moderna and BioNTech. That's bad.
I had this thought too, and it’s certainly possible, but I think we still don’t have the data to compare, because it’s possible that the reduction in moderate/severe cases would be lower than the reduction in total symptomatic cases. (For example, it’s possible that people who are more prone to severe COVID-19 would also have a less protective vaccine response, which would mean the moderate/severe cases would go down less than the total symptomatic cases.) So we just don’t know at this point.
Not necessarily. Consider two groups along J&J's standards for efficacy. You could have identical numbers for moderate to severe cases, but those who weren't vaccinated could have a ton more mild cases compared to mild cases among the vaccinated group. By counting just moderate and severe cases gets you the 66% efficacy. But including mild cases could inflate that number to the mid-90's. In fact, this exact situation could be happening with Pfizer and Moderna, it's just not specified
It's important to remember that J&J's trials happened when the pandemic was at its peak and a bunch of new strands were popping up, a very different scenario from the Pfizer and Moderna trials, I think even the countries in which they had trials were different. So it's possible that Pfizer's and Moderna's efficacy is actually lower than J&J's. Who knows...
That isn't how that works. We can't predict how well a vaccine works for mild cases based on how well it works for really bad cases. Think of it this way: you can't compare which US state has the fastest runners on average by looking at the performance of their pro athletes at relays. Outliers can have their own characteristics which make them different from the population overall. The same logic applies to people who get severe covid cases.
Not really related to the subject matter, but good on you folks!! for calling it Bion-Tech’s vaccine! They’re the ones who actually developed it. And a shout out to Dr. Katalin Kariko, whose research into synthetic mRNA (years and years ago) made the mRNA vaccine possible.
I got the Pfizer vaccine in January, and still got Covid in April. But I was able to go home with cough medicine and steroids, and with my severe asthma that's pretty much a miracle so I would do it again.
You can get an influenza vaccine and you will still get the flu lol. Vaccine isn’t the problem. It’s the virus. Yes some vaccines have eradicated certain diseases but these aren’t so easy to deal with.
Broccoli can help with symptoms of covid-19, so if you had known that and skipped the vaccines, then could still swallow and keep your food down, then eaten Broccoli once you started to get any hint of symptoms, then you would have been ok. Yep, there's lots of things you can take or eat, certain tests you can get, etc. So you may not have needed the vaccine after all. Just know the right stuff (but unfortunately it's as if the mainstream media doesn't want you to know the "right stuff").
@@anonymousperson6462 ....can you not? You're literally putting people's lives at risk by promoting a conspiracy and telling them they shouldn't get the vaccine because diet will treat a viral pneumonia.
@@IceMetalPunk I advise you look into broccoli, sir. Search up "Efficacy of broccoli and glucoraphanin in COVID-19: From hypothesis to proof-of-concept with three experimental clinical cases Jean Bousquet et al. World Allergy Organ J. 2020." By "pub-med . gov / NIH national library of medicine, national center for biotechnology information".
But they still somehow avoid talkin about 1 in 60,000 serious blood clots chance and far worse chances to get smaller blood clots. Countries like Norway band The vaccine for younger people because you have a bigger chance of dying from the clots then from the disease itself. And that's the official scientific position and data. it seems important for young people who are the audience of this channel but, you know, some courage is needed to speak app for science even though it's in the title of your channel.
@@raspas99 yeah, but that wasn't what he was answering. He was answering a question about efficacy, not the actual pros and cons. If you're talking about the general public, that would be under effectiveness, meaning we don't really know yet. We can't be sure just how efficient the vaccines are yet, and if it's even worth it.
@@cornbreadfedkirkpatrick9647 that's true. And it's quite hard to understand things in a deeper and all encompassing level. I just wish they were more open with this.
They had to state that because the Janssen (J&J) trial data was still undergoing peer-review at that time. It has since been reviewed and approved for use in a number of countries. Not sure what the posting delay was either.
I seem to remember a similarly titled video, so I wonder if this is a reupload. I do know I learned this information, but I don't remember if I learned them from SciShow or not.
Tomaz Tannhäuser The Bible is a historical fact The fool says in his heart, there is no God Sid Roth’s watch UA-cam Repent to heaven Jesus second coming soon Jesus loves you
There was probably an internal struggle since official scientific data from countries like Canada or Norway started to show that from certain vaccines you will get a blood clot, 1 in 60,000 chance. Far worse than that is for a mild case of blood clot that can lead to brain damage from oxygen deprivation. but they ended up not really addressing it and just got the video dormant which is a bit crappie in my opinion. Hey, it's only observational scientific data, it's not like this channel has science in its title. In Norway it's band for younger people since they have a bigger chance of dying from it than from the disease. End you can find this unofficial scientific and government websites. Seems like an important thing to report but you know... It was not only the conspiracy theory people who showed their ugly face in this whole mess.
@@mikeycbaby First getting vaccinated with one, then a different one for the second vaccination. It seems like "mixing" has better results than two vaccinations with the same kind
@@mikeycbaby Yes. Staring with Astra and keeping the 12 weeks. www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/spanish-study-finds-astrazeneca-vaccine-followed-by-pfizer-dose-is-safe-2021-05-18/
They needs to show this on all news channels too; not only is this stuff never explained to the public but this channel always makes more sense than BoJo. 🙄
@@Chamelionroses you're having a dig at conspiracy theorists and you can't even form a sentence or spell? - LOL Probably about 3% of conspiracy theorists believe the earth is flat. It's a miniscule amount. So next time please say something logical you spastic.
Because this is a rare case where there are multiple vaccines being developed and supported for the same condition at the same time. Usually, the statistical measures vary based on the specifics of both the drug and the experimental design. Trying to standardize it too much would lead to the wrong measures being used for different studies. (For an example of how using the wrong measurement can be problematic, look no further than the infamous Seralini GMO study, which intentionally used an unusual statistical measure to provide fraudulent results. Among other problems with that study. It's a valid measure, just not for that specific experimental design.)
@@IceMetalPunk It's an error in news reporting, then, eh? These reports of huge gaps in efficacy rates are not explained very well and it has caused hesitancy. But then again, even if they are measuring different data points, implementing different experimental designs, and having varying statistical tools and study subjects, maybe it's good to have a more similar way to do those tests. Indeed, the real world settings won't be replicated and I agree that these call for appropriate experimentatal design and statistical analyses, but we can still begin with the same set of criteria (or their equivalents) and measures specifically for the purpose of measuring the potency of vaccines or other drugs, and that is to at least have a more uniform representation and avoid confusion. Even if choosing what to measure and how to measure them are at the interest and discretion of researchers, maybe international organizations can set those standards. It shouldn't compromise the independence of study as it doesn't limit other ways of using or analyzing the data, nor does it stop other studies of different purposes from being run. Perhaps it can even cut back the cost of the confusion. In short, these vaccines are being investigated for the same purpose of measuring the efficacy rate, so then it can be established to have a standard way to do it. With regards to the example of the Seralini GMO study, don't these vaccine developers and researchers also present the "better" figures and present them in a more attractive way? OR, maybe what's better is not to underscore the efficacy rate (which, as said in this video, measures the likeliness of catching the virus) as much as we do and focus instead on what vaccines really do, which is keeping hospitalizations to low or even zero count. PS, not trying to spark a fight here, just trying to point out what we lack in terms of studying vaccines and drugs ❤. Thanks for the reply tho, it made me think a whole lot more about the matter
Thank you so so so much , i’m a pharmacist and i’ve been trying to explain this to people but never had the ability to articulate it or simplify it for people as you guys did. Now i can just show them this video instead. Well done
Sad truth is that, 1st, people thought efficacy and effectiveness is the same. 2nd, people prefer higher efficacy that lower efficacy without considering storage temperature. Would you prefer high efficacy but very low storage temperature than low efficacy but high storage temperature resulting in sensitivity of handling? 3rd, what are the coverage of phase 3 trial of each vaccine?
Ok, but how many participants were exposed? It's easy to have only a few contract the virus if most were never exposed to it. But intentionally exposing people to a dealer virus is unethical...
There are so many thing wrong with the way this Drug trial is set up that I don't know where to begin. Just know that it is designed to achieve a certain result. I would love to know what legit research scientist destroys their own control group? No-one would do that with a brand new drug. And yet what are we seeing? Millions of doses given to people with less than 0 chance of dying from Covid.
Pfizer’s phase 3 clinical trial of its mRNA began on July 27 2020 and has enrolled 43,661 participants, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020. The Pfizer phase 3 trial had approximately half placebo and half vaccine participants. The way it works is they ran the trial until enough people get infected to have a certain statistical certainty. For Pfizer they observed 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 eight days after the first dose with 162 cases observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the vaccine group. This calculates out to 95% efficacy. Additionally there were 10 severe cases of COVID-19 observed in the trial, with nine of the cases occurring in the placebo group and one in the vaccinated group.
@@MultiAnne36 "I would love to know what legit research scientist destroys their own control group?" Pray tell, in these trials how were the control groups "destroyed"? The people in the control group did NOT get the vaccine during the trial, that's what makes it a control group. Also, no one has "less than 0 chance of dying from COVID" -- some groups are more susceptible to worse illness, but *everyone* has *some* risk if they get infected.
Is it me or did J&J run a far looser trial criteria and still got the lower numbers? The other two got their numbers while counting all their positive testing cases while J&J only counter moderate and severe ones?
Yeah, he is trying to argue that J&J is not as bad as it seems, but save for the impact of new variants during testing, J&J looks even worse knowing how they got at the score. In fact, by the metrics he showed, Pfizer would actually be even better than it seems relative to Moderna... You know, on top of having less side effects and faster 2nd dose.
I mean not completely, JJ's stricter positive requirements also applied to the control group, which meant even a small number of positives in the vaccinated group could mean low percentages. It's possible all of the vaccines don't do great at preventing serious reactions if you were going to get one anyway but the other two just didn't test for that.
Moderna and Pfizer did not count all positive cases they counted all symptomatic cases, there may have been positive asymptomatic cases they did not catch since they were not constantly testing everyone in the groups etc. Also the efficacy numbers for the J&J were 72% in the US and 64% in South Africa where there was a more virulent strain going around, that strain was not around when Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were trialed so those numbers don't tell use how they would do against it (but we might be able to infer something from various trials and outcomes of vaccination campaigns in places like the UK etc.). Probably most importantly the number of people who show moderate and severe symptomatic are much smaller (like a fifth or less) of the number of people who get just symptomatic disease, so if 150 in the control group got symptomatic like 30 might have moderate or severe symptoms maybe less (the people in the study tended to be younger healthier people less likely to get moderate or severe disease). The smaller the numbers the more statistical error due to coincidence and lack of fine grain data you are subject to, like if only 30 people got (moderately or severely) sick then 70% effective is only 9 people getting sick (21 people protected), but 10 people getting sick would be ~67% effectiveness and 8 people is ~73%, so really that 70% number is more like 70%+/-3% just in terms of the granularity of the data. However coincidence is going to play a huge role, if I grab 2 groups of 30,000 people in the same area what are the chances that both will have exactly the same number of cases of COVID-19? Surely there is going to be some variance, one selection is going to have more cases than the other just by chance/coincidence etc., how big is that natural variability like is it like one selection gets 200 the other gets 198 or one selection gets 200 the other gets 150? If the J&J numbers mean like 7 got sick in the control and 2 in the vaccine group then that would be about 72% efficacy but with a +/- 14% just from the granularity of the data, not taking into account the variability of how many people get sick in the sample size considered etc. So the 72% efficacy of J&J in the US could be 72%+/- 20% in which case J&J may be 92% effective against moderate and severe cases and so very comparable to the numbers for Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines, but I don't know any actual estimates for this sort of thing if they even exist.
@@allanolley4874 o.O wouldn't the same variability apply to Pfizer and Moderna? Meaning they start with 90+% give or take from there due to the exact same factors you listed in detail. And J&J could just as easily be in the mid 50's in efficacy. You also suggested smaller numbers impact due to granularity. What's going to give you greater numerical accuracy, all symptomatic cases? Or just moderate to severe? Pfizer and Moderna didn't discard positive results from symptomatic cases, that's the point here. What would J&Js data report if they actually used the same standards as the other two?
Millions of people have gotten the Johnson and Johnson. Six people have passed away after getting it. This is in large part because they had Covid while getting it which is not recommended. People should wait 90 days after having Covid before getting any vaccine
That's long division that they teach in American Elementary schools, and then barely use in middle and high school classes since they've moved to calculators. I have used it once in the 25 years since I learned it, to figure out a group tip on a napkin at a restaurant. www.mathsisfun.com/long_division.html
What's the point of scientific channel with extremely young audience that doesn't advocate scientific data that says one in 60,000 will get a blood clot from certain vaccines and that there is a bigger chance of dying from it... but I mean proven scientific data that you can go this instant and recheck on government official websites like Canada or Norway.
@@raspas99 ??? Okay, I just looked it up, there have been seven reported cases of blood clotting from the j&j vaccine out of 6.8 million reported doses. Second, they list their reputable sources in the description. Third, I would argue that informational content like this should be accessible to all ages. Lastly, what does this have to do with my question about the advertisement of efficacy rates?
@@finallyforfeited astra zeneca. Not JJ. One in 60 000 with severe symptoms and death and who knows how many more with symptoms mild enough not to be reported but with a potential to leave consequences like blood clots do. And it doesn't get more reputable from official Canadian state and health administration. one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. And Norway that band astra zeneca for younger people because you have a bigger chance to die from vaccine than from actual illness. And who said the content shouldn't be accessible? but as a fact they have a younger audience which for a fact is at greater risk from the vaccine than from the illness. At least that's what officials from Norway, one of the most advanced countries on our planet say. I'm not sure what you read but you haven't read official Norway in Canadian scientific report about astra zeneca.
What does the one in 60,000 gets a serious blood clots mean ? How much more frequent you will get smaller blood clots that will destroy parts of your brain by not allowing oxygen to get through?
I've always been a man of science and mathematics, however I never really asked myself if I truely understood vaccines and such until the pandemic. Even after all of that, I guess I was totally ignorant to what these numbers really meant. Thank you so much for teaching me something and I encourage everyone to share this with everyone you know.
That's odd. I would've thought that either the FDA/CDC and/or the WHO would have standardized efficacy rates in vaccines. This is like the food industry chosing which caloric intake study to base their nutritional information on.
Becuase you cant compare them like food. Simply the timing and location can yield fastly different results. That would be like testing how much spices are okay to add in a product in america but test it in thailand or India.
Until a few years ago, there was no requirement for serving sizes to be realistic, so it was common for the food industry to make serving sizes extremely tiny so the nutritional information would look better
Please make a video about actual statistical likelihood of being killed by side effects. It seems like there are numbers like 6 in a million and they are different for each vaccine, age group and gender.
That would be a good video but data would be harder to get that you think. Dying after having the vaccine didn't mean you die from it for example. Some factors will also affect those numbers. Data take time to get AND to analyze...
Here are some starter stats. Two studies support the mRNA figure below but the U.S. CDC says zero as do several other governments. They are likely counting different things (VITT vs CVST maybe). *COVID-19 Statistics* 5 cases of CVST per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine (per UK Oxford study). 4 cases of CVST per million injections of the two mRNA vaccines (per UK Oxford study). 1 case of CVST per million injections of the J&J Janssen vaccine (6 out 6.8 M doses = 0.87, 1 death), 2 cases of CVST per million overall in a later study of J&J Janssen vaccine having 15 cases among 8 million vaccinations, 7 per million under age 50 (13 cases), 1 per million among older (2 cases), all 15 were female, half were obese. 20 cases of immediate anaphylactic reaction per million injections (treatable so no deaths)
@@bobbobber4810 I mean to be fair the same thing can be said about this virus. I have been told by several doctors that a lot of there corona deaths where people that definately died of something else like car crashes or drug over doses soooo....are we going to start trying to be accurate now?
At 2:24 you write that Moderna and BioNTech looked for any symptomatic Covid-19 ... and counted those as cases in their trials". What about asymptomatic cases. Were there any and why wouldn't they be included in the trials if asymptomatic carriers can still be contagious?
Because at the time of the trials, there were no capacities to test every single participant regularly. Laboratories have been overworked for most of the pandemic, they just couldn't make time, space or material for it
The only way to compare asymptomatic cases is if you are testing everyone in the trial weekly to catch all of the asymptomatic cases. That is very difficult to do, especially since tests were hard to get when the trials were being conducted.
They may have found that asymptomatic cases in those with the vaccine had a much lower viral load than those who weren't which would make them far less likely to spread it. Asymptomatic and not/barely contagious is better than asymptomatic and highly contagious.
@@fireriffs Asymptomatic and highly contagious is what you become about 3 to 6 months after vaccination when your antibodies stop flowing actively (assuming you are exposed the virus after this period). You are still personally protected for much longer but protection from you to others is not as long lasting. At least this is the way other coronaviruses behave.
Because the ultimate goal of all the vaccines was to reduce deaths and hospitalizations. That was the priority, as that would allow us to contain the pandemic. This is usually the case with the earliest vaccines. Actually stopping transmission (which would be the reason to know about asymptomatic carriers) takes longer to do, and we needed something that was effective as soon as possible. Plus it is quite likely that reducing symptoms will in fact reduce transmission.
Not to mention that historically every large round fruit was compared to apples. It can be seen in the names for "orange" in some languages. In German, "Apfelsine" is the old word for orange, and Danish still uses the same word with a different spelling.
the LLS did a study regarding people with CLL (Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia) and found that people with CLL in remission had a 79% efficacy rate with the pfizer vacc. Is there a way to quantify that against some measure such as how it worked for general population?
100% of people die, that is the statistic everyone should be focused on. Where will you spend eternity? That's the question everyone should be asking. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
It means that when similar or near identical meteorological conditions have been recorded in the past, 30% of those times there has been rain. Things like wind, humidity (both relative and total), cloud formations, temperature, and a whole host of other things that are known to affect weather are all put together, and they calculate how many times out of a similar collection of circumstances there has been rain. It's a cumulative science, the liver we observe the weather and meteorological conditions around the world, the more precise we can be, but we'll never be 100% sure, because there are some variables we just can't account for, either because we don't know what they are yet, or because the variables in question can't be calculated at the same time as others.
But the worst results of Moderna and Pfizer have been better that of the best results of Jansen in every trial - while using more conservative deffinitions of efficacy for Pfizer/Moderna. I'm NOT saying Jansen is bad, but its hard to argue that Pfizer/Moderna isn't better from an efficacy standpoint.
@@quleughy All the date you need is in the video. He's not wrong, as far as efficacy numbers go Moderna and Pfizer have proven better up to this point against J&J. Not that it matters, as all 3 have also proven to prevent severe cases of Covid, all this data says is you may still get it but you won't die from it, and from what I've read up to this point it most likely prevents you from spreading it to others if you do get it.
@@quleughy www.news-medical.net/news/20210221/Study-shows-real-world-effectiveness-of-Moderna-and-PfizerBioNtech-vaccines.aspx?showform=email www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210503/Researchers-demonstrate-real-world-effectiveness-of-Johnson-Johnson-COVID-19-vaccine.aspx Here's a couple... there are more.
@@Chamelionroses I do not disagree with you. That said, (some - not all) governments have come together and achieved international concensus on pornography legislation, especially where the Internet is concerned, so surely they should also be able to do the same with vaccine trials and testing(?). *_R_* 😎
Thank you for continuing to provide us with information to help us try and understand all of this. It is still confusing but I now have better understanding of why I am confused!
This doesn't say anything I need. How did they give infection to both groups? Did they inject virus to participants? Or how did they expose to the virus? How did they choose the participants?
Tks for video! Would it be simpler if ALL the raw data of clinical trials would be made PUBLIC so in can be renormalised and analysed to same criteria(*), so allow to be scientifically compared, by third parties or anyone who wants to dive deeper?21k x 2 (Biontech) seems a pretty small dataset so can compute even on a home laptop (eg compared to other public datasets of millions o billions used in Machine Leaning) (*)or very similar: the raw trials/tests reports of any drug should report every detail IF anyone knows where to find data please le be know?
The problem is that in order to get that kind of immunity, you have to catch the disease in the first place, and possibly pass it on to others. The thing about "risk of death" is that you only have to get bad luck one time and then you don't get any other chances.
@@IceMetalPunk agreed but for the millions of people who have contracted and survived COVID-19, it would be nice to know what level of immunity is acquired naturally. The current stance is that antibodies fade after 6-8 months but I contracted Covid 14 months ago and still test positive for Covid antibodies (blood test). It would be nice to know how that stacks up before taking experimental vaccines.
You basically just explained that Moderna/Pfizer used a much more inclusive description of Covid-19 symptoms and a much more inclusive timeframe than J&J and still came out with more efficacy. That just shows the Moderna/Pfizer shots are even better than you’d think.
Remember the criteria used to determine what is and isn't a COVID case apply to both the control and experimental groups, so in the case of Moderna, cutting out a large portion of the set of all COVID cases from the dataset could have drastically affected the numbers. Imagine if all of the people who actually had COVID but weren't deemed as contracting it by the criteria of the study were in the control group, that would mean the Janssen shot could have a similar efficacy as the Moderna etc. if the criteria used to determine what counts as a case was the same as what they used. The point is here we don't have that data, so we cannot compare them in that way. Modena and Pfizer are interesting though because it looks like their criteria were quite similar, one key difference being the length of time after the second dose that a case was counted, so it is much more possible to compare those two than it is to compare them to Janssen, but then again they are so similar that it's not worth trying to get a specific one.
This is an example of splitting hairs. You can find variation in the methods and populations of any trial. But for any study you can say "different population" because you're never going to be working on exactly the same people as were in the study. Sometimes changes are relevant; but here the difference is tenuous.
This is a video about RRR - Relative Risk Reduction. Any chance you'll do a video on ARR - Absolute Risk Reduction? The media refuses to bring this number up, as if it doesn't matter.
Here's a good intro: www.tldrpharmacy.com/content/absolute-risk-reduction and the Lancet study relevant to this: www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext which notes "With the use of only RRRs, and omitting ARRs, reporting bias is introduced"
@@michaelsotomayor5001 The data used to calculate RRR (or, as it is called in the video, "efficacy") is the same data you use to calculate ARR. The ARR for all the vaccines is around 1%. It's because of that low number that the media refuses to talk about it, since it would discourage people from taking the vaccines. What I would like is for SciShow to discuss what that low number means in context. For example, say successful vaccines for other diseases had the same low ARR in their trials, then that would mean the number isn't really significant when it comes to vaccines. But I can't seem to find that data for other diseases, so I'm unable to make the comparison for myself. I'm hoping SciShow has easier access to such data, and can show a comparison.
@@embracethenoise Yes, thank you, but I'm already well aware of the reporting bias; that's why I was hoping SciShow would step in and do some honest analysis.
Because it's not the WHO's job to set specific criteria. The studies are done and peer reviewed, if something is wrong with the data that's what the peer review is for.
Well, the statistical analysis is probably mostly the same, but you just can't test out all possible vaccines at the same time in the same place with the same monitoring. And because of different population ages, common genes, etc., a vaccine effective in India is not necessarily as effective in Europe
The way I explained it was: for every 100 infections in the placebo group, there were *x* in the vaccinated group (5 for pfizer). Buuuut, anything over 50% is good. Also important to keep an eye out for whether or not they have info on additional strains (aiming for all to be 50% or higher), and potential side effects (specially if a specific group might be more likely to experience them for one vaccine rather than another). The best vaccine is to have a vaccine.
@@elizaalmabuena when they did the trial. Their protocol was to stop counting once 143 tested positive for covid. You can make the parameters anything you want in order to get the numbers you desire
@@jossfangirl you being upset about a made up parameter to stop data collection has to do with how the effective statistic is to be interpreted in what way?
I hope you feel okay. I got my first one 9 days ago and was terrified. My arm hurt for a couple days. And I felt pretty yucky, though not until 6 days after the shot. It wasn't too horrible, though. Mostly I just slept. One down, one to go. I hope you don't feel anything bad at all. 🤗
@@virglibrsaglove That’s what I did for a couple days after each injection - sleep! I didn’t have any other side effects, other than the sore arm, thankfully.
What you are saying is that Pfizer, and Moderna counts ANY symptomatic case. Jansen count ONLY for moderate-to-severe case. What I understand is Pfizer, and Moderna are less “that does not count” and get better numbers. So why would I choose a vaccine like Jansen? I’m not in a high-risk group. I don’t see why I should accept Jansen. It seems less effective with more side-effect. If I was in the 80 diabetic with pulmonary condition… I would take the first vaccine available. The risk of death would be a major factor. But the worst I get in the influenza season is a really light flu symptom. My survival chance is really high because of genetic, health and age. I’m also pretty sure I would get light to mild symptom if any. So… Should I take the chance of the AstraZeneca/Jansen side-effect? No. I take any precaution I can to protect the vulnerable peoples and myself: mask, cleaning of hand, avoiding contact, keeping a safe distance…But the logical choice was to wait until I can get Pfizer or Moderna available for my age group. Got my first shot of Pfizer over a week ago. According to some study in the Lancet, I would get a decent immunity in one to two weeks in the future. It won’t be as if I get a full two doses but… A big chance I won’t die or get in ICU if I get COVID-19. So the take what we have at hand? No, it’s not always the best choice for everyone.
It is not so much a counting issue. Pfizer and Moderna had tailwinds helping them look good while Janssen and AstraZeneca had headwinds making them look worse. Pfizer and Moderna seem to have worse side-effects on their second dose. AstraZeneca has worse side-effects on its first dose. I think Janssen has the least side-effects overall. But side-effects are so few across the board that it is hard to generalize like this. Vaccine or no vaccine, you will eventually be infected with the virus. Waiting for a preferred vaccine is a gamble. I don’t know about the blood clotting issue. Two studies support the mRNA figure below but the U.S. CDC says zero as do several other governments. They are likely counting different things (VITT vs CVST maybe). *COVID-19 Statistics* 5 cases of CVST per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine (per UK Oxford study). 4 cases of CVST per million injections of the two mRNA vaccines (per UK Oxford study). 1 case of CVST per million injections of the J&J Janssen vaccine (6 out 6.8 M doses = 0.87, 1 death), 2 cases of CVST per million overall in a later study of J&J Janssen vaccine having 15 cases among 8 million vaccinations, 7 per million under age 50 (13 cases), 1 per million among older (2 cases), all 15 were female, half were obese. 20 cases of immediate anaphylactic reaction per million injections (treatable so no deaths that I'm aware of)
basically, since the goal is to prevent death, all of them are efficacious. however, they are not equal. but instead of highlighting the differences, there is a concerted effort to get people to get any vaccine. they don't want people to wait for a vaccine that is hard to store (super low temperature refrigeration) , transport and needs two doses. could you imagine if thousands of people said, i want the better one? there will be greater "breakthrough" infections as happened with the NY Yankees recently. but as I said, the goal is to prevent death.
I noticed a huge lag in upload time in another vid of theirs too. I Wonder what causes it/reasons for it.
3 роки тому
I will never trust big pharma with all their shady approval testing practices. Just say no to drugs, it is poison. You need to let your body heal naturally. There's no such thing as a virus, study koch's postulates, it doesn't pass, not even the first step. Covid tests are not diagnostic; omg, please wake up. 🚩🚩🚩
1) This video comes way too late to make a difference. Given its filming date, it could have been released earlier, but wasn't. 2) We are not given any metrics to do apples to apples comparisons. As a result, most people will still do "bigger number better". 3) Availability is the most important factor. This is especially true in other countries where they can't shop around, and can only take whatever their gov managed to negotiate/buy.
Not really. I am choosing whether to get AZ or JJ now, or wait 2 months for Pfizer. I will be travelling and meeting people in the meantime in my daily life. Knowing that 95 percent of Pfizer is not comparable to JJ's 66 percent is good to know.
Also, there are no possible apples to apples comparisons - if there were, we'd use them. And they don't say anything regarding availability - I'd even go so far as to say that they make you feel better about whatever vaccine you're getting. I also couldn't choose and not too many people are vaccinated in my country, but I'm happy regardless
1) No one’s claiming to try to make a difference in this video. You’re coming to that conclusion all on your own. If you’re seriously relying on UA-cam channels to change the world, don’t.
A very important point that is missing from whatever info is being given to the public is that during a pandemic individual protection matters little. The most important thing is to get as many people immunized to the virus, creating a "wall" of immunity in the population. That way, we don't only prevent deaths because vaccinated people don't get sick as much or as severly, but we also prevent the spread of the virus. So even if we could compare the efficacy numbers directly, that 65% wouldn't matter in the slightest at this point. If the "worse" vaccine somehow made it possible to give everyone some immunity while the "good" one couldn't, then the former is the better vaccine for our currect situation.
Unfortunately, it seems like most people don't care about the people around them, they only care about what happen to themselves. So if the only way to get people to get vaccinated is to appeal to their selfishness, that at least gets them vaccinated.
@@IceMetalPunk That's unfortunately very, very true. To be honest, as a medical professional, and as unethical it may sound, if it was up to me to decide the public would have no prior knowledge of which vaccine they're given. I get that people want to have a choice and that it's their bodies and they have a right to deny any medical procedures, but with thousands of people dying each day worldwide I wouldn't let Mr I-have-no-idea-what-I'm-talking-about-but-I-still-talk have a say in it. Also, people who downright refuse vaccination should waive their right for an ICU bed should the need arise. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
@@959tolis626 I'm fully with you on this. In general, the public's outcry for "all the information" and "all the freedom of choice" is a problem because they don't usually mean it. What they really mean is "tell me words about this, which I'll misinterpret, and I won't learn the truth, I just want to know the words so I can be afraid of them". GMOs, vaccines, gluten, "organic", "artificial", "natural", etc. So many buzzwords that most people don't even understand, but will cry out about because they like the illusion of being informed.
@@IceMetalPunk I'm honestly really glad you didn't misinterpret my point. Many people don't get it and think my view on the matter is a bit elitistic or even sinister. But I truly said everything with the best intentions. Worst thing is that medicine is something most people want to have an idea about, but they have no idea that they have no idea. In an ideal world, healthcare matters would be taken care of by those qualified. I didn't study all these years to become a physician to be outdone by someone that's watched 3 YT videos on the subject. The best analogy I can give would be a massive earthquake that levels a city. Would they tell the emergency response units that they can better save themselves? Would they doubt the engineers' plans for rebuilding and reinforcing structures? Would they tell the cleanup crews to sod off and not touch their stuff under the rubble? Because right now, that's what I'm getting from the whole COVID situation. Most people, when I explain vaccines to them look at me like I'm on Pfizer's/Moderna's/Astra Zeneca's/whichever's payroll and like I'm lying to them to make money. And don't get me started on the whole "mRNA vaccines will affect my DNA!". These people don't even bother reading the most basic principle of molecular biology, but have the audacity to voice a strong, unchanging opinion.
@@959tolis626 I love how every time you mention mRNA, DNA, or anything that sounds related, people are immediately worried about being mutated. As if literally every food they've ever eaten doesn't have DNA, RNA, and mRNA inside it already 😂 If that's how biology worked, then the saying "you are what you eat" would be far more literal lol
Considering this video explains how the efficacy percentages were determined, its still relevant despite its age, especially since the numbers they do use are examples for clarification.
Why such a long time to release such important info filmed on March 19?! Very surprised by SciShow for doing this here. If it's a repost, please let us know.
I remember when I got a vaccine for Lyme disease and the doctor said that it was 75% effective. I asked what that meant? Did it mean that 75% of the people who take the vaccine are less likely to get Lyme disease than if they hadn't taken the vaccine? Or did it mean that if I was bitten by a tick carrying the bacteria I had one chance in four of getting Lyme disease. Suppose I am bitten by ticks n times? Will I get the disease with probability 1 - (1-.75)^n ? I doubt that the doctor even understood what I was asking.
The only thing I disagree with is the comparison piece. Saying they aren't the same is not the same as you can't compare. Less cases of any symptoms vs little more than half as likely to not get moderate symptoms. It is better to get less symptoms in less people. That seems straightforward. So that leaves the sampling methods, does either sampling method explain the difference. You stated some of the differences but which is better, 7 days or 14 days. If A does better at X, B does worse against Y, and if X is approximately Y, A> B. You can argue by how much or big the errors are but if the difference is large enough, it doesn't matter. Your argument being Y isn't equal to X doesn't mean there aren't comparisons.
@@ellioa3978 a direct 95 vs 94 vs 66 is not valid. But you can compare all of the components of the information. For example, just because one counted after 7 days and one after 14, does that even matter if you can mitigate exposure for 14 days? If two companies make cake mixes... with a large sample size, one gets a 95% of the people said it was ok while the other gets 65% of people who didn't throw up. Which would you buy? With that information, it isn't difficult. I didn't say how they were made, what flavor, or anything. One of those things would have to be substantially different to justify the discrepancy.
I have a question. Why does 3 brands have the vaccine released at the same time? Surely they didnt all just happen to finish at the same time, did they?
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine approved on December 11, 2020. Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine approved on December 18, 2020. Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine approved on February 27, 2021 (approval amended April 23, 2021).
The person who scheduled my jnj vaccination asked me on the phone whether I was aware and ok that the JnJ vaccine was less effective than the other two….
I really wish you wrote the title differently. Efficacy and being efficacious is not the same as efficiency or being efficient. The first is trial only and the second terms can only be determined in the real world.
How would "racial and other inequities" affect the effectiveness unless you're looking at effectiveness? They're either administer a vaccine or not. I can see maybe not being able to get a second dose for some reason, but then it wouldn't really count. I've heard of some drugs being more or less effective in certain ethnicities but that's also a contested issue. Or was that just a trendy thing to throw in at the end?
I've had two does of astrazeneca (one in Feb 2021 and April 2021) my body did a fantastic job with dealing with it to be honest, I didn't get any major side effects, the only thing I got was lymph node that was super active because of my immune system, so I only experienced minor aches. Other than that I'm pretty much set and prepared for the variants and in the near future booster shots too in autumn this year. By the way I'm 27 years old btw 😁.
I'm 28. I had my Pfizer shots on April 9 and May 7. The first one only gave me a sore arm for a day. The second one though... I had a terrible fever and chills the whole first night and the following day, and severe nausea and vomiting that night. But now I'm feeling great.
I received 2 shots of the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine. My arm was a little sore each time, and it was less severe after the 2nd dose. Neither time did it prevent me from doing my job and I worked both the day of and the next day. Although, (this really happened) for the 2nd dose the person administering the shot was wearing a lapel pin from the Umbrella Corporation, so if I become a zombie or biomutant I'll update this post.
My nurse that I work with just told me she was exposed to Corona 4 days ago. She is vaccinated but I don't think she should be at work, she didn't get tested and is planning to visit Vancouver in a week. I'm sad that though I may be vaccinated, I may catch and pass on the virus...
There was probably an internal struggle since official scientific data from countries like Canada or Norway starts to show that from certain vaccines you will get a blood clot, 1 in 60,000 chance. Far worse than that is for a mild case of blood clot that can lead to brain damage from oxygen deprivation. but they ended up not really addressing it and just got the video dormant which is a bit crappie in my opinion. Hey, it's only observational scientific data, it's not like this channel has science in its title.
@@raspas99 This video wasn't about side effects, that's why it wasn't addressed. That said, as bad as the blood clot sounds (and it is, which is why investigations began as son as it was noticed), it's still a far lower chance of that happening than dying of COVID, so the vaccine is still worth getting.
@@IceMetalPunk absolutely not, if you are a younger person you have a bigger chance of dying from the vaccine than from the disease. That's why for example in Norway it's not recommended to get it. That's actually the official reason. you can go right now to any government website of Norway and research AstraZeneca and official scientific standpoint of the government. Even though this wasn't a video for side effects where is the video for side effect? That somehow isn't important even though there is a video for pretty much anything you can imagine about the vaccines but side effects that include dying and that are ten times more frequent than initially thought are not important enough even to be mentioned? And what about mild cases of blood clot that are probably way more frequent than serious enough to get you into the hospital? It wouldn't be wild to assume that there are at least ten times more. What about side effects from that? what about oxygen deprivation to the brain when the blood clot ends up there? This channel made videos about how mouse farts can maybe help mushroom cultivation on 12th moon of Jupiter or some bulls**t like that but the fact that 10 times or even more people are getting blood clots from the vaccine during the freaking pandemic is not important enough to be mentioned in a single sentence? How about making 10 videos only about that.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #30 ДВА В ОДНОМ [Один человек]• Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nrXy15orKhY/mqdefault.jpg)
SciShow is supported by Brilliant.org. Go to Brilliant.org/SciShow to get 20% off of an annual Premium subscription.
Hi SciShow. It would be nice and responsible if you reported, considering vaccines, cases of blood clot. Currently scientific data says that it gives you a bigger chance of dying than from the actual disease, if you are a young person. Your viewers are mostly that, even if they are not it seems like a big enough news considering what else have been reported. Currently it's AstraZeneca. numbers are one in 60,000 for only one dose and second one brings the same chance again. You can recheck that on any scientific government health website of Canada. And the fact that there is a bigger chance of dying from it than the actual disease you can recheck on any Norway scientific health official government website. Thank you very much for thinking about your viewers especially when their lives are in danger.
Ps smaller occurrences of blood clot maybe much more frequent and unscientific but very well informed assumption would be that they might occur 10 times more frequently since nature doesn't work like that, it doesn't magically stop at serious cases. That brings it in around one in 3,000 if you get both vaccines which is a really high number in my opinion. Thanks again.
Tell 95% to the Texas lawmakers that caught it while abandoning their State.
As a kid I was allergic to everything I got the Moderna vaccine I have gotten sick with some stomach bugs 🐛 😩 but I have that compromised immune system you heard about I've been exposed to a lot of people and have not died 😃 yeah get vaccinated please its not a trump conspiracy its your life please take it seriously half Vancouver BC covid death this year we're vaccinated seniors we are still in the midst of this thing bless you if you've lost someone to covid. my PTSD counselor to help me deal with my mom being killed by a medical transport accidentally just lost her husband to covid its far reaching please take it seriously please 🙏 💔 we're not out of the wood's yet God bless you
@@raspas99 They are part of the GOV propaganda machine, wtf are you talkin about?
That make sense now.
They should talk about that a little more in the news...
They do talk more about it. Data is available, just not on mainstream media.
With millions of people getting their shots, we now know a lot more about which ones are more effective against what strains, which are better at preventing reinfection/severe cases/death, and which ones aren't that useful at all.
Oh, and side effects too! We have some of those as well.
News flash: each night they have a lot to get to.
@@illesizs Data *is* available online, just not on the nightly news. Why? Time.
The term "mainstream media" is ridiculous.
that would require reporters to understand what they're talking about
@@666Tomato666 They understand what they're talking about.
Didn't the FDA say they'd only approve vaccines with a minimum 50% efficacy? Are you saying they _didn't_ outline standardized criteria for how that number must be calculated?
This is the most confusing part to me.
Yes am very curious about this as well
Gonna go ahead and answer even though it has been up for a while.
FDA required at least 50% efficacy at preventing severe infection to consider a vaccine for emergency approval (this was for covid, in other medical emergencies the value can be different). Anything that showed that level of performance or greater could be submitted to be evaluated for emergency approval and later on move on to full approval. As options that surpassed that baseline value started to go through the requirements for emergency approval (or full approval) increased. As far as I know that baseline is still up for a given vaccines data to be submitted, but they will need to match or outperform the currently available vaccines in one way or another for a good chance at approval (faster to produce, easier to store, less side effects, longer immunity.....)
Did you mean to say this was filmed on May 19th or has it actually been two months since this was filmed?
probably march because he sounds like the Janssen Vaccin has not been approved yet.
Bjorn is right. The dates line up.
Wait a minute. If J&J has 66% when counting only moderate and severe cases, it means that the efficacy would go even further down if they count all symptomatic cases like Moderna and BioNTech.
That's bad.
I had this thought too, and it’s certainly possible, but I think we still don’t have the data to compare, because it’s possible that the reduction in moderate/severe cases would be lower than the reduction in total symptomatic cases. (For example, it’s possible that people who are more prone to severe COVID-19 would also have a less protective vaccine response, which would mean the moderate/severe cases would go down less than the total symptomatic cases.) So we just don’t know at this point.
Not necessarily. Consider two groups along J&J's standards for efficacy. You could have identical numbers for moderate to severe cases, but those who weren't vaccinated could have a ton more mild cases compared to mild cases among the vaccinated group. By counting just moderate and severe cases gets you the 66% efficacy. But including mild cases could inflate that number to the mid-90's. In fact, this exact situation could be happening with Pfizer and Moderna, it's just not specified
It's important to remember that J&J's trials happened when the pandemic was at its peak and a bunch of new strands were popping up, a very different scenario from the Pfizer and Moderna trials, I think even the countries in which they had trials were different. So it's possible that Pfizer's and Moderna's efficacy is actually lower than J&J's. Who knows...
@@alllbw I do agree, but I also do feel less safe overall having taken the J&J shot. As people get more of the "good" vaccine, I do feel more safe.
That isn't how that works. We can't predict how well a vaccine works for mild cases based on how well it works for really bad cases.
Think of it this way: you can't compare which US state has the fastest runners on average by looking at the performance of their pro athletes at relays. Outliers can have their own characteristics which make them different from the population overall. The same logic applies to people who get severe covid cases.
As a Malaysian, you can't compare durians with anything. Haha
very true! 😂
As someone who has seen and tried Durian fruit who is also from the USA I must agree.
How about Jackfruit? Very similar looking but very different in every other way. Actually a great comparison.
I mean, you can compare their smell with that of a corpse 😂
Not really related to the subject matter, but good on you folks!! for calling it Bion-Tech’s vaccine! They’re the ones who actually developed it. And a shout out to Dr. Katalin Kariko, whose research into synthetic mRNA (years and years ago) made the mRNA vaccine possible.
THANK YOU! I've been unable to figure out what exactly they mean, beyond the fact nothing's 100%
I got the Pfizer vaccine in January, and still got Covid in April. But I was able to go home with cough medicine and steroids, and with my severe asthma that's pretty much a miracle so I would do it again.
You can get an influenza vaccine and you will still get the flu lol. Vaccine isn’t the problem. It’s the virus. Yes some vaccines have eradicated certain diseases but these aren’t so easy to deal with.
@@michaelsotomayor5001 they were saying that they got the vaccine so when they caught covid it wasn’t as bad as it could have been.
Broccoli can help with symptoms of covid-19, so if you had known that and skipped the vaccines, then could still swallow and keep your food down, then eaten Broccoli once you started to get any hint of symptoms, then you would have been ok. Yep, there's lots of things you can take or eat, certain tests you can get, etc. So you may not have needed the vaccine after all. Just know the right stuff (but unfortunately it's as if the mainstream media doesn't want you to know the "right stuff").
@@anonymousperson6462 ....can you not? You're literally putting people's lives at risk by promoting a conspiracy and telling them they shouldn't get the vaccine because diet will treat a viral pneumonia.
@@IceMetalPunk I advise you look into broccoli, sir. Search up "Efficacy of broccoli and glucoraphanin in COVID-19: From hypothesis to proof-of-concept with three experimental clinical cases
Jean Bousquet et al. World Allergy Organ J. 2020."
By "pub-med . gov / NIH national library of medicine, national center for biotechnology information".
Thanks for helping inform the public!
Better than social media right now
But they still somehow avoid talkin about 1 in 60,000 serious blood clots chance and far worse chances to get smaller blood clots. Countries like Norway band The vaccine for younger people because you have a bigger chance of dying from the clots then from the disease itself. And that's the official scientific position and data. it seems important for young people who are the audience of this channel but, you know, some courage is needed to speak app for science even though it's in the title of your channel.
@@raspas99 yeah, but that wasn't what he was answering. He was answering a question about efficacy, not the actual pros and cons. If you're talking about the general public, that would be under effectiveness, meaning we don't really know yet. We can't be sure just how efficient the vaccines are yet, and if it's even worth it.
@@raspas99 Because everything has been taken out of context
@@cornbreadfedkirkpatrick9647 that's true. And it's quite hard to understand things in a deeper and all encompassing level. I just wish they were more open with this.
But if we can't compare the numbers, do they really tell us anything?
Yes individually they do.
For most people, the numbers don't really mean anything. Remember, fear and shame, not information, will get us through this crisis.
Wait... filmed on March 19th? Is this really 2 months old?
Edit: I suppose the info is still good no matter when it was filmed. :)
They had to state that because the Janssen (J&J) trial data was still undergoing peer-review at that time. It has since been reviewed and approved for use in a number of countries. Not sure what the posting delay was either.
I seem to remember a similarly titled video, so I wonder if this is a reupload. I do know I learned this information, but I don't remember if I learned them from SciShow or not.
"Durian to Jack Fruit..." maybe?
I was thinking "durian to strawberries." But I don't know if that's a good one.
I'm not the best with these kinds of abstract comparisons. Haha
Excuse me Sir/Madam
Are you saved?
If you died tonight are you going to heaven?
Jesus loves you
@@gagsdoublej4254 Yes I am already spoken for, sorry. Is that Jesus Martinez stalking me again? Is he threatening to kill me?
@@gagsdoublej4254 How do you know for sure that it is your god and not any other god from the myraid of gods that man has created?
Tomaz Tannhäuser
The Bible is a historical fact
The fool says in his heart, there is no God
Sid Roth’s watch UA-cam
Repent to heaven
Jesus second coming soon
Jesus loves you
.84% absolute risk reduction is more accurate as the CDC states than the Relative risk reduction of 95% which you present.
They're only off by 94.16% though
why was this uploaded 2 months later?
There was probably an internal struggle since official scientific data from countries like Canada or Norway started to show that from certain vaccines you will get a blood clot, 1 in 60,000 chance. Far worse than that is for a mild case of blood clot that can lead to brain damage from oxygen deprivation.
but they ended up not really addressing it and just got the video dormant which is a bit crappie in my opinion. Hey, it's only observational scientific data, it's not like this channel has science in its title. In Norway it's band for younger people since they have a bigger chance of dying from it than from the disease. End you can find this unofficial scientific and government websites. Seems like an important thing to report but you know... It was not only the conspiracy theory people who showed their ugly face in this whole mess.
I'm really interested in results from mixed vaccines like Astra and Pfizer.
I read that they can be even higher than both astras.
Mixed?
@@mikeycbaby First getting vaccinated with one, then a different one for the second vaccination. It seems like "mixing" has better results than two vaccinations with the same kind
@@mikeycbaby Yes. Staring with Astra and keeping the 12 weeks. www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/spanish-study-finds-astrazeneca-vaccine-followed-by-pfizer-dose-is-safe-2021-05-18/
I imagine the benefits are more pronounced when combining two viral vector vaccines.
They needs to show this on all news channels too; not only is this stuff never explained to the public but this channel always makes more sense than BoJo. 🙄
Even if explained some stay flat earther oops I mean into conspiracies about vaccines because one gets high on the idea of fear over bs
@@Chamelionroses you're having a dig at conspiracy theorists and you can't even form a sentence or spell? - LOL
Probably about 3% of conspiracy theorists believe the earth is flat. It's a miniscule amount.
So next time please say something logical you spastic.
So why haven't we standardized or at least have guidelines to measure those efficacy rates?
Because this is a rare case where there are multiple vaccines being developed and supported for the same condition at the same time. Usually, the statistical measures vary based on the specifics of both the drug and the experimental design. Trying to standardize it too much would lead to the wrong measures being used for different studies. (For an example of how using the wrong measurement can be problematic, look no further than the infamous Seralini GMO study, which intentionally used an unusual statistical measure to provide fraudulent results. Among other problems with that study. It's a valid measure, just not for that specific experimental design.)
@@IceMetalPunk It's an error in news reporting, then, eh? These reports of huge gaps in efficacy rates are not explained very well and it has caused hesitancy. But then again, even if they are measuring different data points, implementing different experimental designs, and having varying statistical tools and study subjects, maybe it's good to have a more similar way to do those tests. Indeed, the real world settings won't be replicated and I agree that these call for appropriate experimentatal design and statistical analyses, but we can still begin with the same set of criteria (or their equivalents) and measures specifically for the purpose of measuring the potency of vaccines or other drugs, and that is to at least have a more uniform representation and avoid confusion. Even if choosing what to measure and how to measure them are at the interest and discretion of researchers, maybe international organizations can set those standards. It shouldn't compromise the independence of study as it doesn't limit other ways of using or analyzing the data, nor does it stop other studies of different purposes from being run. Perhaps it can even cut back the cost of the confusion. In short, these vaccines are being investigated for the same purpose of measuring the efficacy rate, so then it can be established to have a standard way to do it. With regards to the example of the Seralini GMO study, don't these vaccine developers and researchers also present the "better" figures and present them in a more attractive way? OR, maybe what's better is not to underscore the efficacy rate (which, as said in this video, measures the likeliness of catching the virus) as much as we do and focus instead on what vaccines really do, which is keeping hospitalizations to low or even zero count.
PS, not trying to spark a fight here, just trying to point out what we lack in terms of studying vaccines and drugs ❤. Thanks for the reply tho, it made me think a whole lot more about the matter
Thank you so so so much , i’m a pharmacist and i’ve been trying to explain this to people but never had the ability to articulate it or simplify it for people as you guys did. Now i can just show them this video instead.
Well done
Sad truth is that, 1st, people thought efficacy and effectiveness is the same.
2nd, people prefer higher efficacy that lower efficacy without considering storage temperature. Would you prefer high efficacy but very low storage temperature than low efficacy but high storage temperature resulting in sensitivity of handling?
3rd, what are the coverage of phase 3 trial of each vaccine?
I got my 2nd jab today, my WiFi has never been better! 🤣
Rip. See if the magnet sticks.
In a few hours you should receive a call from Bill Gates directly through the 5G waves like I did.
@@ellioa3978 Already did, best call of my life, my NASA SHILL cheque got doubled! 🤣
@@DoctaOsiris 🤣🤣🤣 jokes aside, wishing you well because sometimes the second shot packs a punch, it definitely did for me.
@@DoctaOsiris you don't need this vaccine...
@3:23 how could they possibly be 100% effective at preventing death when thousands of people have died from taking them?
Ok, but how many participants were exposed? It's easy to have only a few contract the virus if most were never exposed to it. But intentionally exposing people to a dealer virus is unethical...
There are so many thing wrong with the way this Drug trial is set up that I don't know where to begin. Just know that it is designed to achieve a certain result. I would love to know what legit research scientist destroys their own control group? No-one would do that with a brand new drug. And yet what are we seeing? Millions of doses given to people with less than 0 chance of dying from Covid.
Pfizer’s phase 3 clinical trial of its mRNA began on July 27 2020 and has enrolled 43,661 participants, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020. The Pfizer phase 3 trial had approximately half placebo and half vaccine participants.
The way it works is they ran the trial until enough people get infected to have a certain statistical certainty. For Pfizer they observed 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 eight days after the first dose with 162 cases observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the vaccine group. This calculates out to 95% efficacy. Additionally there were 10 severe cases of COVID-19 observed in the trial, with nine of the cases occurring in the placebo group and one in the vaccinated group.
@@MultiAnne36 "I would love to know what legit research scientist destroys their own control group?" Pray tell, in these trials how were the control groups "destroyed"? The people in the control group did NOT get the vaccine during the trial, that's what makes it a control group. Also, no one has "less than 0 chance of dying from COVID" -- some groups are more susceptible to worse illness, but *everyone* has *some* risk if they get infected.
Getting my first vaccination today; can't wait :)
0:08 March 19th? Just posted on May 22nd?
Mt guess is they meant may 19? Idk though
Saying ppl at it's best 🙌
@@Lulu_Catnaps even so, 2 months is a long ass time
Is it me or did J&J run a far looser trial criteria and still got the lower numbers?
The other two got their numbers while counting all their positive testing cases while J&J only counter moderate and severe ones?
Yeah, he is trying to argue that J&J is not as bad as it seems, but save for the impact of new variants during testing, J&J looks even worse knowing how they got at the score. In fact, by the metrics he showed, Pfizer would actually be even better than it seems relative to Moderna... You know, on top of having less side effects and faster 2nd dose.
I mean not completely, JJ's stricter positive requirements also applied to the control group, which meant even a small number of positives in the vaccinated group could mean low percentages. It's possible all of the vaccines don't do great at preventing serious reactions if you were going to get one anyway but the other two just didn't test for that.
Moderna and Pfizer did not count all positive cases they counted all symptomatic cases, there may have been positive asymptomatic cases they did not catch since they were not constantly testing everyone in the groups etc.
Also the efficacy numbers for the J&J were 72% in the US and 64% in South Africa where there was a more virulent strain going around, that strain was not around when Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were trialed so those numbers don't tell use how they would do against it (but we might be able to infer something from various trials and outcomes of vaccination campaigns in places like the UK etc.).
Probably most importantly the number of people who show moderate and severe symptomatic are much smaller (like a fifth or less) of the number of people who get just symptomatic disease, so if 150 in the control group got symptomatic like 30 might have moderate or severe symptoms maybe less (the people in the study tended to be younger healthier people less likely to get moderate or severe disease). The smaller the numbers the more statistical error due to coincidence and lack of fine grain data you are subject to, like if only 30 people got (moderately or severely) sick then 70% effective is only 9 people getting sick (21 people protected), but 10 people getting sick would be ~67% effectiveness and 8 people is ~73%, so really that 70% number is more like 70%+/-3% just in terms of the granularity of the data. However coincidence is going to play a huge role, if I grab 2 groups of 30,000 people in the same area what are the chances that both will have exactly the same number of cases of COVID-19? Surely there is going to be some variance, one selection is going to have more cases than the other just by chance/coincidence etc., how big is that natural variability like is it like one selection gets 200 the other gets 198 or one selection gets 200 the other gets 150? If the J&J numbers mean like 7 got sick in the control and 2 in the vaccine group then that would be about 72% efficacy but with a +/- 14% just from the granularity of the data, not taking into account the variability of how many people get sick in the sample size considered etc.
So the 72% efficacy of J&J in the US could be 72%+/- 20% in which case J&J may be 92% effective against moderate and severe cases and so very comparable to the numbers for Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines, but I don't know any actual estimates for this sort of thing if they even exist.
@@allanolley4874 o.O wouldn't the same variability apply to Pfizer and Moderna?
Meaning they start with 90+% give or take from there due to the exact same factors you listed in detail. And J&J could just as easily be in the mid 50's in efficacy.
You also suggested smaller numbers impact due to granularity. What's going to give you greater numerical accuracy, all symptomatic cases? Or just moderate to severe?
Pfizer and Moderna didn't discard positive results from symptomatic cases, that's the point here. What would J&Js data report if they actually used the same standards as the other two?
Millions of people have gotten the Johnson and Johnson. Six people have passed away after getting it. This is in large part because they had Covid while getting it which is not recommended. People should wait 90 days after having Covid before getting any vaccine
Oh my, the division graphic at 2:11 really confused me.
That's long division that they teach in American Elementary schools, and then barely use in middle and high school classes since they've moved to calculators. I have used it once in the 25 years since I learned it, to figure out a group tip on a napkin at a restaurant.
www.mathsisfun.com/long_division.html
What's the point of efficacy ratings and advertising them if they aren't comparable?
What's the point of scientific channel with extremely young audience that doesn't advocate scientific data that says one in 60,000 will get a blood clot from certain vaccines and that there is a bigger chance of dying from it... but I mean proven scientific data that you can go this instant and recheck on government official websites like Canada or Norway.
@@raspas99 ??? Okay, I just looked it up, there have been seven reported cases of blood clotting from the j&j vaccine out of 6.8 million reported doses. Second, they list their reputable sources in the description. Third, I would argue that informational content like this should be accessible to all ages. Lastly, what does this have to do with my question about the advertisement of efficacy rates?
@@finallyforfeited astra zeneca. Not JJ. One in 60 000 with severe symptoms and death and who knows how many more with symptoms mild enough not to be reported but with a potential to leave consequences like blood clots do.
And it doesn't get more reputable from official Canadian state and health administration. one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. And Norway that band astra zeneca for younger people because you have a bigger chance to die from vaccine than from actual illness.
And who said the content shouldn't be accessible? but as a fact they have a younger audience which for a fact is at greater risk from the vaccine than from the illness. At least that's what officials from Norway, one of the most advanced countries on our planet say. I'm not sure what you read but you haven't read official Norway in Canadian scientific report about astra zeneca.
What does the one in 60,000 gets a serious blood clots mean ? How much more frequent you will get smaller blood clots that will destroy parts of your brain by not allowing oxygen to get through?
I've always been a man of science and mathematics, however I never really asked myself if I truely understood vaccines and such until the pandemic. Even after all of that, I guess I was totally ignorant to what these numbers really meant. Thank you so much for teaching me something and I encourage everyone to share this with everyone you know.
That's odd. I would've thought that either the FDA/CDC and/or the WHO would have standardized efficacy rates in vaccines. This is like the food industry chosing which caloric intake study to base their nutritional information on.
Becuase you cant compare them like food.
Simply the timing and location can yield fastly different results.
That would be like testing how much spices are okay to add in a product in america but test it in thailand or India.
@@mauricebenink they mean standardize the calculation at least.
@@midosabbagh I'm not sure it's possible in these scenarios. Not if the end goal is to reduce it to a simple number.
@@mariaquiet6211 it is. Say everyone count mild symptoms and do the calculation the same.
Until a few years ago, there was no requirement for serving sizes to be realistic, so it was common for the food industry to make serving sizes extremely tiny so the nutritional information would look better
This is the kind of thing I like to hear when I get home from Shot 2, Moderna. YAY!
Get some fruit juice, prepare to do nothing tomorrow. I hope it goes better for you than it did for me!
@@epistax4 Been preppin' all week
Me too...
You like to hear that they've lied to you to get you to take an experimental drug?
@@i_got_worms7106 it’s his choice to get it and yours to not. He’s not hurting you by getting vaccinated.
Please make a video about actual statistical likelihood of being killed by side effects. It seems like there are numbers like 6 in a million and they are different for each vaccine, age group and gender.
That would be a good video but data would be harder to get that you think.
Dying after having the vaccine didn't mean you die from it for example.
Some factors will also affect those numbers.
Data take time to get AND to analyze...
@Bob Bobber the data is out there and the cause of death is noted, I just can't really interpret it or compare it with the same finesse as Sci show
Here are some starter stats. Two studies support the mRNA figure below but the U.S. CDC says zero as do several other governments. They are likely counting different things (VITT vs CVST maybe).
*COVID-19 Statistics*
5 cases of CVST per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine (per UK Oxford study).
4 cases of CVST per million injections of the two mRNA vaccines (per UK Oxford study).
1 case of CVST per million injections of the J&J Janssen vaccine (6 out 6.8 M doses = 0.87, 1 death),
2 cases of CVST per million overall in a later study of J&J Janssen vaccine having 15 cases among 8 million vaccinations, 7 per million under age 50 (13 cases), 1 per million among older (2 cases), all 15 were female, half were obese.
20 cases of immediate anaphylactic reaction per million injections (treatable so no deaths)
@@bobbobber4810 I mean to be fair the same thing can be said about this virus. I have been told by several doctors that a lot of there corona deaths where people that definately died of something else like car crashes or drug over doses soooo....are we going to start trying to be accurate now?
@@cloudpoint0 thank you for taking the time, this is the kind of information I am looking for, where can I find more?
At 2:24 you write that Moderna and BioNTech looked for any symptomatic Covid-19 ... and counted those as cases in their trials". What about asymptomatic cases. Were there any and why wouldn't they be included in the trials if asymptomatic carriers can still be contagious?
Because at the time of the trials, there were no capacities to test every single participant regularly. Laboratories have been overworked for most of the pandemic, they just couldn't make time, space or material for it
The only way to compare asymptomatic cases is if you are testing everyone in the trial weekly to catch all of the asymptomatic cases. That is very difficult to do, especially since tests were hard to get when the trials were being conducted.
They may have found that asymptomatic cases in those with the vaccine had a much lower viral load than those who weren't which would make them far less likely to spread it. Asymptomatic and not/barely contagious is better than asymptomatic and highly contagious.
@@fireriffs
Asymptomatic and highly contagious is what you become about 3 to 6 months after vaccination when your antibodies stop flowing actively (assuming you are exposed the virus after this period). You are still personally protected for much longer but protection from you to others is not as long lasting. At least this is the way other coronaviruses behave.
Because the ultimate goal of all the vaccines was to reduce deaths and hospitalizations. That was the priority, as that would allow us to contain the pandemic. This is usually the case with the earliest vaccines.
Actually stopping transmission (which would be the reason to know about asymptomatic carriers) takes longer to do, and we needed something that was effective as soon as possible. Plus it is quite likely that reducing symptoms will in fact reduce transmission.
I feel like I already saw this video back in March
You did, it was filmed in march.
@@locococo8961 they still use film?
It was a video explaining how the Johnson & Johnson's Covid-19 vaccines 66% efficacy doesn't mean it's no effective. I got confused too.
Why the rush releasing this over 2 months after being filmed
What's wrong with Comparing apples to oranges, both are fruit are they not? I hate that saying.
Not to mention that historically every large round fruit was compared to apples. It can be seen in the names for "orange" in some languages. In German, "Apfelsine" is the old word for orange, and Danish still uses the same word with a different spelling.
the LLS did a study regarding people with CLL (Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia) and found that people with CLL in remission had a 79% efficacy rate with the pfizer vacc. Is there a way to quantify that against some measure such as how it worked for general population?
100% effective at preventing death. That's the statistic we all should focus on
100% of people die, that is the statistic everyone should be focused on. Where will you spend eternity? That's the question everyone should be asking. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
Can you explain what 30% chance of rain means?
It means that it's either going to rain, or not rain.
It means that of the ten girls the weatherman met that day, seven greeted him with a smile while the other three didn’t
It means that when the same atmospheric conditions prevailed in the past, 30% of these occasions led to rain.
It means that when similar or near identical meteorological conditions have been recorded in the past, 30% of those times there has been rain. Things like wind, humidity (both relative and total), cloud formations, temperature, and a whole host of other things that are known to affect weather are all put together, and they calculate how many times out of a similar collection of circumstances there has been rain. It's a cumulative science, the liver we observe the weather and meteorological conditions around the world, the more precise we can be, but we'll never be 100% sure, because there are some variables we just can't account for, either because we don't know what they are yet, or because the variables in question can't be calculated at the same time as others.
I've understood it as 30% of the included area will get rain
good question
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
A wise man once said if it's not 100% accurate it is 50% accurate
does this man happen to love hail too?
If you’re not first, you’re last. - Ricky Bobby
This is exactly what I have been looking for. Thanks for making this video.
I expected to see the formulas used somewhere in the video. Despite the speaker's comment, there was no math in this video.
But there was
@@samueltukua3061 Thanks - I will look again.
But the worst results of Moderna and Pfizer have been better that of the best results of Jansen in every trial - while using more conservative deffinitions of efficacy for Pfizer/Moderna. I'm NOT saying Jansen is bad, but its hard to argue that Pfizer/Moderna isn't better from an efficacy standpoint.
I’m curious what you’re talking about. Do you have any links?
@@quleughy All the date you need is in the video. He's not wrong, as far as efficacy numbers go Moderna and Pfizer have proven better up to this point against J&J. Not that it matters, as all 3 have also proven to prevent severe cases of Covid, all this data says is you may still get it but you won't die from it, and from what I've read up to this point it most likely prevents you from spreading it to others if you do get it.
@@quleughy www.news-medical.net/news/20210221/Study-shows-real-world-effectiveness-of-Moderna-and-PfizerBioNtech-vaccines.aspx?showform=email
www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20210503/Researchers-demonstrate-real-world-effectiveness-of-Johnson-Johnson-COVID-19-vaccine.aspx
Here's a couple... there are more.
@@JC-dt7jv TY.
Why is the episode 2 months old?
Imagine car manufacturers using each their own methodology for calculating mpg
As a Honduran you can’t compare durians with anything
CDC or WHO should really set a universal standard of testing jabs.
What I was thinking.
1000,000,000% AGREE ! ! !
Well being US based gov org doesn't mean they easily can. Each gov has own stuff like NASA is not the only place space is explored
It is complicated
@@Chamelionroses I do not disagree with you.
That said, (some - not all) governments have come together and achieved international concensus on pornography legislation, especially where the Internet is concerned, so surely they should also be able to do the same with vaccine trials and testing(?).
*_R_* 😎
What about the studies on Ivermectin from different countries?
Thank you for continuing to provide us with information to help us try and understand all of this. It is still confusing but I now have better understanding of why I am confused!
This doesn't say anything I need. How did they give infection to both groups? Did they inject virus to participants? Or how did they expose to the virus? How did they choose the participants?
95% of the time.. It Works everytime.
Heheh... this is kinda like comparing treadwear ratings from one different tire company to another. Thanks!
Tks for video!
Would it be simpler if ALL the raw data of clinical trials would be made PUBLIC so in can be renormalised and analysed to same criteria(*), so allow to be scientifically compared, by third parties or anyone who wants to dive deeper?21k x 2 (Biontech) seems a pretty small dataset so can compute even on a home laptop (eg compared to other public datasets of millions o billions used in Machine Leaning)
(*)or very similar: the raw trials/tests reports of any drug should report every detail
IF anyone knows where to find data please le be know?
thankyou for sharing
What about the efficacy rating for natural infection and recovery.
The problem is that in order to get that kind of immunity, you have to catch the disease in the first place, and possibly pass it on to others. The thing about "risk of death" is that you only have to get bad luck one time and then you don't get any other chances.
@@IceMetalPunk agreed but for the millions of people who have contracted and survived COVID-19, it would be nice to know what level of immunity is acquired naturally. The current stance is that antibodies fade after 6-8 months but I contracted Covid 14 months ago and still test positive for Covid antibodies (blood test). It would be nice to know how that stacks up before taking experimental vaccines.
@@Failfast0 They're no more experimental than any other vaccine.
@@IceMetalPunk you're doing good work in this comment section btw
Soooo. Why dont they regulate the criteria for the tests?
Could you explain Sinovac one, may I ask? Thank you so much for your hard work at bringing information to us bite sized, easily understandable.
Why are you still using film?
You basically just explained that Moderna/Pfizer used a much more inclusive description of Covid-19 symptoms and a much more inclusive timeframe than J&J and still came out with more efficacy. That just shows the Moderna/Pfizer shots are even better than you’d think.
Remember the criteria used to determine what is and isn't a COVID case apply to both the control and experimental groups, so in the case of Moderna, cutting out a large portion of the set of all COVID cases from the dataset could have drastically affected the numbers. Imagine if all of the people who actually had COVID but weren't deemed as contracting it by the criteria of the study were in the control group, that would mean the Janssen shot could have a similar efficacy as the Moderna etc. if the criteria used to determine what counts as a case was the same as what they used. The point is here we don't have that data, so we cannot compare them in that way. Modena and Pfizer are interesting though because it looks like their criteria were quite similar, one key difference being the length of time after the second dose that a case was counted, so it is much more possible to compare those two than it is to compare them to Janssen, but then again they are so similar that it's not worth trying to get a specific one.
Filmed in march why release in may?
Somehow I have less confidence in the“vaccinated people are safe” rhetoric after watching this video. 😕
Pretty sure that no vaccine is 100% effective
This is an example of splitting hairs. You can find variation in the methods and populations of any trial. But for any study you can say "different population" because you're never going to be working on exactly the same people as were in the study. Sometimes changes are relevant; but here the difference is tenuous.
This is a video about RRR - Relative Risk Reduction. Any chance you'll do a video on ARR - Absolute Risk Reduction? The media refuses to bring this number up, as if it doesn't matter.
Is there enough data for that? Maybe the reason the us government is asking people to not wear a mask is to make data available for them.
Here's a good intro: www.tldrpharmacy.com/content/absolute-risk-reduction and the Lancet study relevant to this: www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
which notes "With the use of only RRRs, and omitting ARRs, reporting bias is introduced"
@@michaelsotomayor5001 The data used to calculate RRR (or, as it is called in the video, "efficacy") is the same data you use to calculate ARR. The ARR for all the vaccines is around 1%. It's because of that low number that the media refuses to talk about it, since it would discourage people from taking the vaccines. What I would like is for SciShow to discuss what that low number means in context. For example, say successful vaccines for other diseases had the same low ARR in their trials, then that would mean the number isn't really significant when it comes to vaccines. But I can't seem to find that data for other diseases, so I'm unable to make the comparison for myself. I'm hoping SciShow has easier access to such data, and can show a comparison.
@@embracethenoise Yes, thank you, but I'm already well aware of the reporting bias; that's why I was hoping SciShow would step in and do some honest analysis.
How come he WHO didn't set specific criteria for all of them?
Because it's not the WHO's job to set specific criteria. The studies are done and peer reviewed, if something is wrong with the data that's what the peer review is for.
Well, the statistical analysis is probably mostly the same, but you just can't test out all possible vaccines at the same time in the same place with the same monitoring. And because of different population ages, common genes, etc., a vaccine effective in India is not necessarily as effective in Europe
“If you want more complex understanding of the world, you need appreciation for the numbers that underly it all” - said no antivaxxer ever...
You should look up the difference between RRR and ARR.. then re-watch this and see if you can spot where he skips over mentioning that difference.
Wait, this was filmed on March 19th?
The way I explained it was: for every 100 infections in the placebo group, there were *x* in the vaccinated group (5 for pfizer).
Buuuut, anything over 50% is good. Also important to keep an eye out for whether or not they have info on additional strains (aiming for all to be 50% or higher), and potential side effects (specially if a specific group might be more likely to experience them for one vaccine rather than another).
The best vaccine is to have a vaccine.
Once they reached the 140 number out of 43k they quit counting. Not a very good math problem.
@@jossfangirl are you going to mention the context for your comment, or just leave it as an irrelevant statement?
@@elizaalmabuena when they did the trial. Their protocol was to stop counting once 143 tested positive for covid. You can make the parameters anything you want in order to get the numbers you desire
@@jossfangirl you being upset about a made up parameter to stop data collection has to do with how the effective statistic is to be interpreted in what way?
@@elizaalmabuena interpreted the efficacy of the drug
I figured the next video was a correction of the Damascus steel one
getting my shot in few hours
Got my second shot (Moderna) about 14 hours ago. Currently feel like I'm dying. BUT I don't regret it.
@@BraydenTM I hope you feel better soon.
Just avoid astra zeneca
I hope you feel okay. I got my first one 9 days ago and was terrified. My arm hurt for a couple days. And I felt pretty yucky, though not until 6 days after the shot. It wasn't too horrible, though. Mostly I just slept. One down, one to go. I hope you don't feel anything bad at all. 🤗
@@virglibrsaglove That’s what I did for a couple days after each injection - sleep! I didn’t have any other side effects, other than the sore arm, thankfully.
What you are saying is that Pfizer, and Moderna counts ANY symptomatic case. Jansen count ONLY for moderate-to-severe case. What I understand is Pfizer, and Moderna are less “that does not count” and get better numbers. So why would I choose a vaccine like Jansen? I’m not in a high-risk group. I don’t see why I should accept Jansen. It seems less effective with more side-effect. If I was in the 80 diabetic with pulmonary condition… I would take the first vaccine available. The risk of death would be a major factor. But the worst I get in the influenza season is a really light flu symptom. My survival chance is really high because of genetic, health and age. I’m also pretty sure I would get light to mild symptom if any. So… Should I take the chance of the AstraZeneca/Jansen side-effect? No. I take any precaution I can to protect the vulnerable peoples and myself: mask, cleaning of hand, avoiding contact, keeping a safe distance…But the logical choice was to wait until I can get Pfizer or Moderna available for my age group. Got my first shot of Pfizer over a week ago. According to some study in the Lancet, I would get a decent immunity in one to two weeks in the future. It won’t be as if I get a full two doses but… A big chance I won’t die or get in ICU if I get COVID-19. So the take what we have at hand? No, it’s not always the best choice for everyone.
It is not so much a counting issue. Pfizer and Moderna had tailwinds helping them look good while Janssen and AstraZeneca had headwinds making them look worse. Pfizer and Moderna seem to have worse side-effects on their second dose. AstraZeneca has worse side-effects on its first dose. I think Janssen has the least side-effects overall. But side-effects are so few across the board that it is hard to generalize like this. Vaccine or no vaccine, you will eventually be infected with the virus. Waiting for a preferred vaccine is a gamble.
I don’t know about the blood clotting issue. Two studies support the mRNA figure below but the U.S. CDC says zero as do several other governments. They are likely counting different things (VITT vs CVST maybe).
*COVID-19 Statistics*
5 cases of CVST per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine (per UK Oxford study).
4 cases of CVST per million injections of the two mRNA vaccines (per UK Oxford study).
1 case of CVST per million injections of the J&J Janssen vaccine (6 out 6.8 M doses = 0.87, 1 death),
2 cases of CVST per million overall in a later study of J&J Janssen vaccine having 15 cases among 8 million vaccinations, 7 per million under age 50 (13 cases), 1 per million among older (2 cases), all 15 were female, half were obese.
20 cases of immediate anaphylactic reaction per million injections (treatable so no deaths that I'm aware of)
basically, since the goal is to prevent death, all of them are efficacious.
however, they are not equal. but instead of highlighting the differences, there is a concerted effort to get people to get any vaccine. they don't want people to wait for a vaccine that is hard to store (super low temperature refrigeration) , transport and needs two doses. could you imagine if thousands of people said, i want the better one?
there will be greater "breakthrough" infections as happened with the NY Yankees recently.
but as I said, the goal is to prevent death.
filmed March 18 uploaded May 22....wow
I was wondering....
I'm guessing it's a typo in that part of the script that nobody noticed? At least, I hope that's what it is.
I noticed a huge lag in upload time in another vid of theirs too. I Wonder what causes it/reasons for it.
I will never trust big pharma with all their shady approval testing practices. Just say no to drugs, it is poison. You need to let your body heal naturally. There's no such thing as a virus, study koch's postulates, it doesn't pass, not even the first step. Covid tests are not diagnostic; omg, please wake up. 🚩🚩🚩
1) This video comes way too late to make a difference. Given its filming date, it could have been released earlier, but wasn't.
2) We are not given any metrics to do apples to apples comparisons. As a result, most people will still do "bigger number better".
3) Availability is the most important factor. This is especially true in other countries where they can't shop around, and can only take whatever their gov managed to negotiate/buy.
Not really. I am choosing whether to get AZ or JJ now, or wait 2 months for Pfizer. I will be travelling and meeting people in the meantime in my daily life. Knowing that 95 percent of Pfizer is not comparable to JJ's 66 percent is good to know.
Also, there are no possible apples to apples comparisons - if there were, we'd use them. And they don't say anything regarding availability - I'd even go so far as to say that they make you feel better about whatever vaccine you're getting. I also couldn't choose and not too many people are vaccinated in my country, but I'm happy regardless
where are the current numbers?
1) No one’s claiming to try to make a difference in this video. You’re coming to that conclusion all on your own. If you’re seriously relying on UA-cam channels to change the world, don’t.
A very important point that is missing from whatever info is being given to the public is that during a pandemic individual protection matters little. The most important thing is to get as many people immunized to the virus, creating a "wall" of immunity in the population. That way, we don't only prevent deaths because vaccinated people don't get sick as much or as severly, but we also prevent the spread of the virus. So even if we could compare the efficacy numbers directly, that 65% wouldn't matter in the slightest at this point. If the "worse" vaccine somehow made it possible to give everyone some immunity while the "good" one couldn't, then the former is the better vaccine for our currect situation.
Unfortunately, it seems like most people don't care about the people around them, they only care about what happen to themselves. So if the only way to get people to get vaccinated is to appeal to their selfishness, that at least gets them vaccinated.
@@IceMetalPunk That's unfortunately very, very true. To be honest, as a medical professional, and as unethical it may sound, if it was up to me to decide the public would have no prior knowledge of which vaccine they're given. I get that people want to have a choice and that it's their bodies and they have a right to deny any medical procedures, but with thousands of people dying each day worldwide I wouldn't let Mr I-have-no-idea-what-I'm-talking-about-but-I-still-talk have a say in it. Also, people who downright refuse vaccination should waive their right for an ICU bed should the need arise. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
@@959tolis626 I'm fully with you on this. In general, the public's outcry for "all the information" and "all the freedom of choice" is a problem because they don't usually mean it. What they really mean is "tell me words about this, which I'll misinterpret, and I won't learn the truth, I just want to know the words so I can be afraid of them". GMOs, vaccines, gluten, "organic", "artificial", "natural", etc. So many buzzwords that most people don't even understand, but will cry out about because they like the illusion of being informed.
@@IceMetalPunk I'm honestly really glad you didn't misinterpret my point. Many people don't get it and think my view on the matter is a bit elitistic or even sinister. But I truly said everything with the best intentions. Worst thing is that medicine is something most people want to have an idea about, but they have no idea that they have no idea. In an ideal world, healthcare matters would be taken care of by those qualified. I didn't study all these years to become a physician to be outdone by someone that's watched 3 YT videos on the subject. The best analogy I can give would be a massive earthquake that levels a city. Would they tell the emergency response units that they can better save themselves? Would they doubt the engineers' plans for rebuilding and reinforcing structures? Would they tell the cleanup crews to sod off and not touch their stuff under the rubble? Because right now, that's what I'm getting from the whole COVID situation. Most people, when I explain vaccines to them look at me like I'm on Pfizer's/Moderna's/Astra Zeneca's/whichever's payroll and like I'm lying to them to make money. And don't get me started on the whole "mRNA vaccines will affect my DNA!". These people don't even bother reading the most basic principle of molecular biology, but have the audacity to voice a strong, unchanging opinion.
@@959tolis626 I love how every time you mention mRNA, DNA, or anything that sounds related, people are immediately worried about being mutated. As if literally every food they've ever eaten doesn't have DNA, RNA, and mRNA inside it already 😂 If that's how biology worked, then the saying "you are what you eat" would be far more literal lol
It is positively brilliant how he goes so seamlessly from his presentation into an advertisement.
Proper script writing pays off
@@redmoon383 Yes, everything about this video series is well done, including the convincing nerd persona of the presenter.
Propaganda
@@fireboltaz Math and empirical evidence for the efficacy of vaccines is propaganda?
What's more brilliant is not seeing an advertisement at all because you're using sponsorblock. It doesn't get any more seamless than that.
Very informative
Great video thank you for the knowledge
My vaccine playlist will wake you up
March? Old video?
Considering this video explains how the efficacy percentages were determined, its still relevant despite its age, especially since the numbers they do use are examples for clarification.
Why such a long time to release such important info filmed on March 19?! Very surprised by SciShow for doing this here. If it's a repost, please let us know.
I remember when I got a vaccine for Lyme disease and the doctor said that it was 75% effective. I asked what that meant? Did it mean that 75% of the people who take the vaccine are less likely to get Lyme disease than if they hadn't taken the vaccine? Or did it mean that if I was bitten by a tick carrying the bacteria I had one chance in four of getting Lyme disease. Suppose I am bitten by ticks n times? Will I get the disease with probability 1 - (1-.75)^n ?
I doubt that the doctor even understood what I was asking.
The only thing I disagree with is the comparison piece. Saying they aren't the same is not the same as you can't compare.
Less cases of any symptoms vs little more than half as likely to not get moderate symptoms. It is better to get less symptoms in less people. That seems straightforward. So that leaves the sampling methods, does either sampling method explain the difference. You stated some of the differences but which is better, 7 days or 14 days.
If A does better at X, B does worse against Y, and if X is approximately Y, A> B. You can argue by how much or big the errors are but if the difference is large enough, it doesn't matter. Your argument being Y isn't equal to X doesn't mean there aren't comparisons.
They’re saying that you can’t compare the efficacy rates because they’re all measured very differently with different sample sizes and stuff.
@@ellioa3978 a direct 95 vs 94 vs 66 is not valid. But you can compare all of the components of the information. For example, just because one counted after 7 days and one after 14, does that even matter if you can mitigate exposure for 14 days?
If two companies make cake mixes... with a large sample size, one gets a 95% of the people said it was ok while the other gets 65% of people who didn't throw up. Which would you buy? With that information, it isn't difficult. I didn't say how they were made, what flavor, or anything. One of those things would have to be substantially different to justify the discrepancy.
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
Filmed on march 19th and only just released? Meanwhile the Damascus video was a complete waste of time...
Where is scishow going with its quality???
I have a question. Why does 3 brands have the vaccine released at the same time? Surely they didnt all just happen to finish at the same time, did they?
they didn't release at the same time
You answered it yourself. They didn't.
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine approved on December 11, 2020.
Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine approved on December 18, 2020.
Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine approved on February 27, 2021 (approval amended April 23, 2021).
It's based on when the complete genome of Covid-19 was published. The researchers developing mRNA vaccines took ~72 hours and
two months since this was filmed, is this a reupload by chance?
The person who scheduled my jnj vaccination asked me on the phone whether I was aware and ok that the JnJ vaccine was less effective than the other two….
😳
I really wish you wrote the title differently. Efficacy and being efficacious is not the same as efficiency or being efficient. The first is trial only and the second terms can only be determined in the real world.
I guess he managed to explain that at 3:41
Comparing the two numbers is like comparing durians to coconuts.
They can both kill you it if falls from a tree.
More reason to wait to get vaccinated.
Damn, it's almost as if it's a science ;)
How would "racial and other inequities" affect the effectiveness unless you're looking at effectiveness? They're either administer a vaccine or not. I can see maybe not being able to get a second dose for some reason, but then it wouldn't really count. I've heard of some drugs being more or less effective in certain ethnicities but that's also a contested issue. Or was that just a trendy thing to throw in at the end?
I've had two does of astrazeneca (one in Feb 2021 and April 2021) my body did a fantastic job with dealing with it to be honest, I didn't get any major side effects, the only thing I got was lymph node that was super active because of my immune system, so I only experienced minor aches. Other than that I'm pretty much set and prepared for the variants and in the near future booster shots too in autumn this year. By the way I'm 27 years old btw 😁.
I'm 28. I had my Pfizer shots on April 9 and May 7. The first one only gave me a sore arm for a day. The second one though... I had a terrible fever and chills the whole first night and the following day, and severe nausea and vomiting that night. But now I'm feeling great.
Thanks for sharing your experiences
I received 2 shots of the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine. My arm was a little sore each time, and it was less severe after the 2nd dose. Neither time did it prevent me from doing my job and I worked both the day of and the next day.
Although, (this really happened) for the 2nd dose the person administering the shot was wearing a lapel pin from the Umbrella Corporation, so if I become a zombie or biomutant I'll update this post.
@@CeeJMantis lmao, thanks for sharing
My nurse that I work with just told me she was exposed to Corona 4 days ago. She is vaccinated but I don't think she should be at work, she didn't get tested and is planning to visit Vancouver in a week. I'm sad that though I may be vaccinated, I may catch and pass on the virus...
Shame on you for being human.
Uhh
What happened in this 2 months that caused the gap from film dste to release date?
There was probably an internal struggle since official scientific data from countries like Canada or Norway starts to show that from certain vaccines you will get a blood clot, 1 in 60,000 chance. Far worse than that is for a mild case of blood clot that can lead to brain damage from oxygen deprivation.
but they ended up not really addressing it and just got the video dormant which is a bit crappie in my opinion. Hey, it's only observational scientific data, it's not like this channel has science in its title.
@@raspas99 This video wasn't about side effects, that's why it wasn't addressed. That said, as bad as the blood clot sounds (and it is, which is why investigations began as son as it was noticed), it's still a far lower chance of that happening than dying of COVID, so the vaccine is still worth getting.
@@IceMetalPunk absolutely not, if you are a younger person you have a bigger chance of dying from the vaccine than from the disease. That's why for example in Norway it's not recommended to get it. That's actually the official reason. you can go right now to any government website of Norway and research AstraZeneca and official scientific standpoint of the government. Even though this wasn't a video for side effects where is the video for side effect? That somehow isn't important even though there is a video for pretty much anything you can imagine about the vaccines but side effects that include dying and that are ten times more frequent than initially thought are not important enough even to be mentioned? And what about mild cases of blood clot that are probably way more frequent than serious enough to get you into the hospital? It wouldn't be wild to assume that there are at least ten times more. What about side effects from that? what about oxygen deprivation to the brain when the blood clot ends up there? This channel made videos about how mouse farts can maybe help mushroom cultivation on 12th moon of Jupiter or some bulls**t like that but the fact that 10 times or even more people are getting blood clots from the vaccine during the freaking pandemic is not important enough to be mentioned in a single sentence? How about making 10 videos only about that.
Don't talk about the issues with their percentages! They'll shut you down for not confusing people.
I’m fully vaccinated now...though I was hoping to turn into a zombie like in I Am Legend...
I keep my fingers for you. You know, thalidomide didn't work for the first nine months either.
We don't need this vaccine. Don't be a sheep
No no no, youre going to get a phone call from bill gates directly to your implanted chip through the 5G waves lol😂
@@Gnashercide yet youve probably been vaccinated for the flu, chicken pox, hpv, and a bunch of other stuff.
@@ellioa3978 nope ,never .
67% of the time it works all the time