Re: [爆卦] 真實世界的AZ和BNT-pfizer疫苗的效果

從這段開始看
（這段+Ongoing那段）

Furthermore, both trials were largely conducted before the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant B.1.1.7 became dominant in the United Kingdom9.

以下提到一些疫苗對於B.1.1.7的防護力（文獻15、16、18、19等）
其中16直接指出 BNT 非常推薦使用在英國變種上

所以這篇文獻的下一段才提出對上面文獻的質疑

However, existing studies have either investigated defined sub-populations9,18,19 or have relied on the results from symptomatic testing programs15,17, potentially leading to bias from vaccination status influencing the test-seeking behavior of cases not requiring health care

他認為這些文獻選用的都已經是有症狀者或特定的子群體，所以會造成結果的偏差

基本上你選讀的這篇「主要目的」是為AZ效力較差做翻案

沒說他結論錯，但這篇的存在也說明「在主流研究中」BNT效力確實較佳

至於兩者真實效力如何
反正你選讀了這篇
我以這樣的內容回應你

基本上就注定我們的看法不同了
而我確實與這篇提到的部分文獻看法一樣

BNT比AZ更適合作為對變種的疫苗
就舉本篇第16號參考文獻內容

BNT162b2 vaccine to be 70% 21 days after the first dose, increasing to 85% 7 days after the second dose in our study population. Given the dominance of theB.1.1.7 variant in England during the study period, which accounted for 50% or more positive tests in Pillar 2 laboratories since the beginning of December, 2020, in the South East, London, and East of England, and in all regions by early January 2021 (with Yorkshire and the Humber the last region), our findings suggest that the BNT162b2 is effective against the B1.1.7.16

我再舉第19篇，針對80歲以上老人的文獻結論也是BNT較佳

BNT
From 14 days after the second dose a vaccination effectiveness of 89% (85% to93%) was found compared with the increased baseline risk

AZ
With ChAdOx1-S, effects were seen from 14 to 20 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 60% (41% to 73%) from 28 to 34 days, increasing to 73%(27% to 90%) from day 35 onwards.

以上
為避免斷章取義，我盡量引用原文。

--

還是要回應一下，不然會被以為大家都看不懂 然後關於印度變種，這又是另外一個更嚴峻的問題，這幾篇再怎麼樣都還是針對英國變種 如果來的是印度變種，就不會這麼簡單了 美國華盛頓大學健康指標與評估研究院有預估針對其他三種變種的防護力以及重症預防率

基本上AZ（真實數據）還是不樂觀 但mRNA疫苗組的預測數值還是比較高 但這也是預測，所以僅供參考