The "efficacy against severe disease" stunt is one of the craziest inventions of the pandemic. I just looked up the previous version of the TPP: "At least 70% efficacy (on population basis, with consistent results in the elderly). Endpoint may be assessed vs. disease, severe disease, and/or shedding/transmission." Choice of endpoint is not the same as "protection against". Even for a vaccine that protects against infection, it may be much easier to measure effect on severe disease. On the other hand, how is a vaccine that does not at all protect against infection (i.e., reproduction of the virus in the body) supposed to prevent severe disease?
As a therapeutic, but how? My bigger problem is mandating a countermeasure that does but prevent infection. That should be illegal. What justifies being forced against one’s will to take a countermeasureIt does not stop transmission?
The "efficacy against severe disease" stunt is one of the craziest inventions of the pandemic. I just looked up the previous version of the TPP: "At least 70% efficacy (on population basis, with consistent results in the elderly). Endpoint may be assessed vs. disease, severe disease, and/or shedding/transmission." Choice of endpoint is not the same as "protection against". Even for a vaccine that protects against infection, it may be much easier to measure effect on severe disease. On the other hand, how is a vaccine that does not at all protect against infection (i.e., reproduction of the virus in the body) supposed to prevent severe disease?
As a therapeutic, but how? My bigger problem is mandating a countermeasure that does but prevent infection. That should be illegal. What justifies being forced against one’s will to take a countermeasureIt does not stop transmission?
Great work. I look forward to your subsequent articles.