Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Ulrich2 1962 days ago
Please stop spreading lies. The paper is only about "The effectiveness of the first dose of BNT162 ..."

50% efficacy after the first dose is exactly the number that BioNTech reported in its Phase3 trial. So nothing unusual here. That is why the 2nd booster shot is needed to get to 95%.
1 comments
beagle3 1962 days ago
No it is not. Have you actually read either Pfizer’s report or this paper? Looked at their data?

The graphs, both in Pfizer’s original report and in this paper, show that past about two weeks, there is almost no change. Please look at the Pfizer graphs and tell me where the great advance is from 50% to 90%

Also, if yo actually read the Pfizer report, you’ll notice the 95% is for mild disease - a totally uninteresting result. For severe disease, it is 75% with a CI spanning the whole 0-100% range.

link
Ulrich2 1962 days ago
Well, the solution to this dispute is easy => We just wait another 8 weeks:

(1) If am right, then Covid is gone in Israel by end of March.

(2) If you are right, Covid will be still a huge problem in in Israel.

link
beagle3 1962 days ago
I won't hold you to this, even though you are guaranteed to lose in this bet even if you are right - because the trial for 5-12 that would allow to vaccinate them is not expected to yield any data until later than that. Even if you are right, it will still be here in that age group.

Also, there's a nature paper from last week that shows incredible correlation between Sun UVB at 34% of equator and the date that a wave starts. Covid will be gone by June, just like last year, thanks entirely to that effect (and possibly arrive again in Sep/Oct, or not). I'm not interested in meterology, but it's possible that even if I'm right, by end of March covid will be very dim in correlation with UVB exposure.

The amount of data actually attributable to cause and effect is incredibly miniscule. I do data science for a living. The headlines are basically all wrong, most discussions are, and quite a bit of the primary data cannot be right.

added: p.s - Did you actually read the papers before calling me a lier (or after?) or just did it based on headlines. I'm not holding it against you either way, just wondering.

link