Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(128,710 posts)
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 08:00 AM Nov 2020

Pfizer and BioNTech say final analysis shows coronavirus vaccine is 95% effective

Source: CNN

(CNN)A final analysis of the Phase 3 trial of Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine shows it was 95% effective in preventing infections, even in older adults, and caused no serious safety concerns, the company said Wednesday. The company counted 170 cases of coronavirus infection among volunteers who took part in the trial. It said 162 infections were in people who got placebo, or plain saline shots, while eight cases were in participants who got the actual vaccine. That works out to an efficacy of 95%, Pfizer said.

The data show Pfizer's initial claim of a better than 90% efficacy -- a claim that stunned and pleased health officials and vaccine developers last week -- holds up. "Efficacy was consistent across age, race and ethnicity demographics. The observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%," Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech said in a joint statement. "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 BNT162b2 vaccinated group." BNT162b2 is the experimental name for the vaccine.

An independent group has been keeping an eye on results and side-effects. "To date, the Data Monitoring Committee for the study has not reported any serious safety concerns related to the vaccine," the companies said. "The only Grade 3 (severe) solicited adverse event greater than or equal to 2% in frequency after the first or second dose was fatigue at 3.7% following dose 2," the companies said. Older adults tended to have fewer adverse events and those they had were milder. Pfizer said it will seek US Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization "within days." "These data also will be submitted to other regulatory agencies around the world," Pfizer said. They plan to publish the data in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, as well.

"The rapid protection this vaccine provides -- combined with its tolerability profile in all age groups studied so far -- should help make this vaccine an important tool to address the current pandemic," said Dr. Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of BioNTech. Pfizer said on November 9 that interim data provided initial evidence the vaccine had an efficacy of more than 90%. That data was based on the first 94 cases of coronavirus infection among volunteers. The company said at the time it would need to count more cases of infection in the trial before it could consider the Phase 3 part of the trial finished and seek FDA authorization.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/18/health/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-safety/index.html



Full headline: Pfizer and BioNTech say final analysis shows coronavirus vaccine is 95% effective with no safety concerns
26 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pfizer and BioNTech say final analysis shows coronavirus vaccine is 95% effective (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Nov 2020 OP
Excellent news. underpants Nov 2020 #1
Looked like the P.R. department at Pfizer BumRushDaShow Nov 2020 #3
The news is that Pfizer is ready to ask for authorization of the vaccine. LisaL Nov 2020 #4
Like all big pharma - they are in competition with each other BumRushDaShow Nov 2020 #5
Pfizer understands, from long and even longer experience, that SIZE MATTERS! RobertDevereaux Nov 2020 #18
They have to show optimum value for the investment BumRushDaShow Nov 2020 #19
Fauci has said that Pfizer has produced reliable, accurate trial results. Happy Hoosier Nov 2020 #20
What I am posting about has nothing to do with the validity of their research BumRushDaShow Nov 2020 #22
I read it as a suggesting that they are juicing their numbers. Happy Hoosier Nov 2020 #23
Nope not saying that at all BumRushDaShow Nov 2020 #24
Got it. Thanks. NT Happy Hoosier Nov 2020 #25
YW BumRushDaShow Nov 2020 #26
The silver lining of skyrocketing covid cases is that clinical trials LisaL Nov 2020 #2
Excellent news DeminPennswoods Nov 2020 #6
Good News! Sherman A1 Nov 2020 #7
Questions moreland01 Nov 2020 #8
Both require 2 doses (but different timeframes apart) BumRushDaShow Nov 2020 #9
To me having two doses is worse than distribution and storage issues. LisaL Nov 2020 #12
I would think everyone would "want" that. Happy Hoosier Nov 2020 #21
Over 40,000 people participated in this trial, yet TheRickles Nov 2020 #10
What you are missing that vast majority of people who die are elderly with serious pre-existing LisaL Nov 2020 #11
Yet according to that CNN report TheRickles Nov 2020 #13
You can't protect frail elders if everybody else becomes infected. LisaL Nov 2020 #14
Sure, and those contacts and meetings with younger relatives TheRickles Nov 2020 #15
There is nothing but shades of grey in our public health measures. LisaL Nov 2020 #16
Positive Covid test results are indeed going through the roof. TheRickles Nov 2020 #17

BumRushDaShow

(128,710 posts)
3. Looked like the P.R. department at Pfizer
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 08:12 AM
Nov 2020

needed to do something to counter Moderna's "95% effective" claim vs Pfizer's earlier "90% effective" claim. It's just that simple.

BumRushDaShow

(128,710 posts)
5. Like all big pharma - they are in competition with each other
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 08:23 AM
Nov 2020

Moderna's announcement yesterday of "95% effectiveness" vs Pfizer " (only) 90% effectiveness", coupled with Moderna's emphasis that THEIR vaccine didn't require a -100F freezer like Pfizer's, meant that Pfizer needed to get their asses in gear to be competitive.

BumRushDaShow

(128,710 posts)
19. They have to show optimum value for the investment
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 11:50 AM
Nov 2020

They are not a non-profit research hospital.

Over the past 20 or so years, they bought 5 big well-known pharmaceutical companies including biggies like Warner-Lambert and Wyeth, so they are mindful of whatever debt load they have from all of that and maximizing their product offerings and market share.

Moderna is a smaller, more-targeted "newbie" in the marketplace - I suppose what they might call "agile". But in this case, they were around at the right place and at the right time if their product is successful. I expect someone much larger will gobble them up at some point.

Happy Hoosier

(7,251 posts)
20. Fauci has said that Pfizer has produced reliable, accurate trial results.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 01:13 PM
Nov 2020

We either trust him, or we don't. I trust him.

BumRushDaShow

(128,710 posts)
22. What I am posting about has nothing to do with the validity of their research
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 01:17 PM
Nov 2020

let alone anything to do with Fauci.

But they ARE a company that must show value to their stock holders and they do jockey for market share with their marketing and product announcements - particularly when they are competing against a smaller newer "start up" like Moderna (among others who are out there working on a vaccine).

BumRushDaShow

(128,710 posts)
24. Nope not saying that at all
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 01:52 PM
Nov 2020

Just chuckling at the fact that they probably knew what their final numbers would be but went "conservative" with their initial announcement until a smaller, "narrow-focused" ("young, scrappy, and hungry" ) company jumped out with theirs that for all intents and purposes, served to "look better" than the giant (at least to investors). So then the big wigs at Pfizer probably told them to go head and put their final numbers out PLUS up it a bit by including their being ready to go for the final approval.

They are all businesses and Pfizer has become a huge conglomerate that gobbled up many large well-known, now-defunct pharmaceutical companies over the years, so they have been there done that. But this pandemic is extra challenging but also lucrative, so they probably feel they need to "do it right" for the long term.

They already do vaccines like Prevnar 13, which is one of the popular pneumonia vaccines.

DeminPennswoods

(15,273 posts)
6. Excellent news
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 08:59 AM
Nov 2020

Lost in all the red vs blue and acrimony is the absolutely stunning speed with which the medical, biotech, pharmaceutical, scientific and research communities and government entities worked together to develop more than 1 effective vaccine. Less than a year after the first discovery of SARS2, there are at least 2 vaccines ready for production with more on the way.

For comparison, it took decades of work to develop the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines.

A salute to the clinical trial volunteers as well. IIRC, there were several DU'ers who had planned to participate.

BumRushDaShow

(128,710 posts)
9. Both require 2 doses (but different timeframes apart)
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 09:17 AM
Nov 2020
How many doses will I need?

Both vaccines require two doses. Pfizer’s booster shot will be given three weeks after the first one; Moderna’s is spaced four weeks later.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/11/17/covid-vaccines-what-you-need-to-know/?arc404=true

LisaL

(44,972 posts)
12. To me having two doses is worse than distribution and storage issues.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 10:07 AM
Nov 2020

I'd want to get the vaccine and not wait 3-4 weeks for another dose before I am "immune."

Happy Hoosier

(7,251 posts)
21. I would think everyone would "want" that.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 01:14 PM
Nov 2020

Maybe a later vaccine will do that. In the mean time we have an effective vaccine.

TheRickles

(2,047 posts)
10. Over 40,000 people participated in this trial, yet
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 09:44 AM
Nov 2020

in the placebo arm of 20,000 subjects, only nine people developed serious symptoms of Covid, with no deaths reported. This makes for a morbidity rate of less than 0.05% in the normal population, and a fatality rate of 0.00%. A deadly pandemic would have much, much higher numbers. What am I missing?

LisaL

(44,972 posts)
11. What you are missing that vast majority of people who die are elderly with serious pre-existing
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 09:57 AM
Nov 2020

conditions.
Presumably this group is less represented in a clinical trial than in general population. It's also a fair guess that clinical trial participants are more carefully monitored for signs of covid than general population, resulting in faster testing and treatment.

TheRickles

(2,047 posts)
13. Yet according to that CNN report
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 10:12 AM
Nov 2020

"...41% of global and 45% of U.S. participants are 56-85 years of age." Their clinical status isn't mentioned, and it's quite possible that they were generally healthy. So this reinforces part of your point, regarding low representation in the study of elders with serious pre-existing conditions. But if the many presumably healthy elders in the study had such a low morbidity rate, then perhaps our public health measures should be aimed at protecting frail elders, not the general population as a whole.

LisaL

(44,972 posts)
14. You can't protect frail elders if everybody else becomes infected.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 10:15 AM
Nov 2020

Elders are not living in a vacuum. They have younger relatives.

TheRickles

(2,047 posts)
15. Sure, and those contacts and meetings with younger relatives
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 10:46 AM
Nov 2020

or nursing home employees and etc. are the ones we should be most vigilant about. But for the rest of the country that isn't in contact with frail elders, there should be some shades of gray in our public health measures.

LisaL

(44,972 posts)
16. There is nothing but shades of grey in our public health measures.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 10:48 AM
Nov 2020

Which is why our covid cases are going through the roof.

TheRickles

(2,047 posts)
17. Positive Covid test results are indeed going through the roof.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 11:00 AM
Nov 2020

But I haven't been able to find stats about what % of those folks who test positive are also symptomatic. Or about how effective the asymptomatic positive testers are at spreading the virus, compared to symptomatic people. These seem to be big gaps in the prevailing narrative, so if you have some links, that'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Pfizer and BioNTech say f...