Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

It's from the CDC. They probably shouldn't be seeking attention at this point.

Like most things, most of what we hear from the CDC is from their PR and Press/media folks.  They do have dedicated intelligent people doing work who never talk to the media.  I know, and know of, some of them.  They likely roll their eyes at what gets said in public often as not, but most work in unrelated areas.

Study shows Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness declines after six months | TheHill

As we expected, a pretty significant decline in 6 months.

It's not that big a profit item for Pfizer and J&J, but it's huge for Moderna.

The first two have had little movement in their stock price, and Pfizer's earnings in 2020 was below expectations.  

I'm confused...

A study published on Monday in The Lancet medical journal found that the efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine fell below 50 percent after about six months after the second dose.

The Pfizer-funded study found that Pfizer's vaccine was 88 percent effective in the first month after full vaccination but dropped to 47 percent effectiveness at about six months. The vaccine was also found to be highly effective against the delta variant, which was found to be over 90 percent effective in the first months before dropping to 53 percent effectiveness after four months.

Researchers determined that the waning immunity had to do with the amount of time since an individual was given the second shot rather than due to the highly infectious delta strain.

"Our results provide support for high effectiveness of [Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine] against hospital admissions up until around 6 months after being fully vaccinated, even in the face of widespread dissemination of the delta variant," the researchers wrote. "Reduction in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections over time is probably primarily due to waning immunity with time rather than the delta variant escaping vaccine protection."

Protection against hospital admission remained high throughout, being 93 percent effective up to six months after administration.

So effectiveness wanes to 50% for infection at six months, I guess, but it's still 93% effective at stopping hospitalization at six months?

Why is this a problem? That said to me that it's 93% effective after six months for the important metric, and a booster is unnecessary.

Getting infected is still a problem even if you don't go to the hospital.  You likely miss work (I hope) and you can spread it to others of course.

R naught.

On simple practical grounds, I can't see how they could have developed a vaccine with intentional loss of effectiveness in such a rush.  Their focus would be on effective, this drop in efficacy has to be unrelated to their intent.

You're obviously not doing enough research on social media.  Big Pharma is capable of doing it.  They can do ANYthing.

Obviously loss of effectiveness isn't the best thing in the world. I wouldn't really hesitate to get the booster personally.

I just find it really annoying that reporters can't be very clear about exactly WHAT level of effectiveness has waned. If it's not as good at stopping infection but it is still excellent (and I consider 93% excellent) at avoiding hospitalization, that's GOOD news.

Most reporters don't understand science and their eyes glaze over anytime numbers are involved, though, so I'm not surprised. Just annoyed.

Well, and the other issue is, the entire point is NOT to eliminate infections.  It's to reduce the damage that COVID19 does to human beings.  93% effectiveness means that it IS significantly minimizing the damage done to humans.

As posted earlier on this thread (or the other one), estimates are that 75% of all flu cases are either asymptomatic or so mild they're never reported.

I think the public, and the mediots, and the government,  have become confused on what the goal should be.

The goal should NOT be, to eradicate the virus, to eliminate infection entirely.  That's unrealistic and actually it's completely impossible.

The goal SHOULD be, to reduce the effect of this virus on humans, to the point that it is no more dangerous or damaging, than other illnesses we see on a regular basis and accept as a base rate for continuing to live our lives normally-- like, for example, the flu.

How close to that level of tolerance/acceptance of damage, does the 93 % get us? That's the relevant question, when given this bit of data.