1/ An excellent new paper from Denmark that tracks every vaccination given to nursing home residents there shows an 40% RISE in infections immediately after the first @pfizer dose and no efficacy at any point. Protection in this population after “full” vaccination is 64%...

2/ The researchers also tracked health-care workers, the other group in Denmark to receive the vaccine first. They actually had an even LARGER rise in infections immediately following dose 1, but overall higher protection at “full” vaccination (a week after dose 2) - 90%...
3/ This paper is the best yet (because it’s the least political). It is also in line with the Israeli and English data show once you wade through their spin. The takeaways are: The vaccine is much less effective in the people who need it most and DON’T DELAY THE SECOND SHOT...
4/ By the way, i#depending on how long the vaccine provides protection, its OVERALL effectiveness will be below whatever the peak figure is, maybe well below - you need a lot of good weeks to make up for that bolus at the beginning - but I don’t even want to go there.
5/ This paper also shows why the raw Israeli numbers are trash - if infections are declining overall (as they were in Israel and Denmark in February) looking at infections in the vaccinated population without adjusting for that trend markedly overestimates the vaccine effect.
6/ One last point: vaccine efficacy is also overestimated on a population basis because the Israeli and Danish data show about 10% of elderly people get one dose but not the second, presumably because they couldn’t tolerate it. So they get all the downside and none of the upside.
7/ They are also not counted as fully vaccinated, which makes the vaccine numbers look better.

Source: https://t.co/RtyNiWlfXL

More from Category c19

It's all here folks...How the CoVid Con was 37 years in the marking

3/4
https://t.co/WBAnAUO0UU

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.