5 ms·

Nearly all Covid deaths in US are now among unvaccinated

21 points by bryan0 5y ago

hitpointdrew 5y ago
In other news, water is wet, most accidents happen with 10 miles of the home, and most shark attacks happen in shallow water. In other words, no shit. Imagine that, all the vaccinated people aren’t getting the virus, and therefore not dying from it. Wow, fucking ground breaking science.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  There are people disputing that the vaccine prevents COVID. When you point out that the studies and data show that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines both reduce the chances of getting COVID by ~95%, they use that as proof. But of course, they don't sit there and say that it's "only" a 95% reduction, instead they just make simple bad-faith claims that "the vaccines don't prevent you from getting COVID". So yeah...there are people that think the vaccines are worthless.
  - necovek 5y ago
    If your numbers are correct, and the OP report is correct and statistically significant, then we are looking at a death rate of (12.5% x 5% =) 0.6%, compared to 2% otherwise. So, while a huge 3x improvement, it's not as article worthy or vaccine-supporting like comparing 150 to 18k people. I do actually believe that people who were on the edge, seeing such disingenious reporting, decide to have even less trust. 5% is 100%-95%, and 12.5% is the death rate of vaccinated people who got COVID (150/1200).
    - necovek 5y ago
      To explain the discrepancy in absolute numbers, I'd likely turn to pattern of behaviour: most (95%?) of the world hasn't gotten COVID yet, and most of those who are or would get vaccinated early exhibit a pattern of behaviour that's less risky anyway. But saying the actual numbers like you are 3x more likely to die if unvaccinated with equal exposure, doesn't quite sell it the same way (because it means 30% would die anyway). I still believe it's worth it, but that's what the numbers say, and it's not as black and white anymore.
    - rspeele 5y ago
      Per the article (1200 hospitalizations, 150 deaths) 12.5% is the death rate among vaccinated people who were hospitalized for COVID, not who got COVID. So you're missing an extra probability multiplication to account for what percentage of vaccinated people who do catch COVID go on to have a severe enough case to be hospitalized. That should be a big difference.
      - necovek 5y ago
        Sure, my bad, but my point was to compare incidence rates for vaccinated vs not, and 18k deaths are also out of 853k hospitalizations. Keeping the comparison valid even if badly "misnamed", if hospitalization rates are the same (which are not reported here).
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      Your 0.6% is pretty sensitive to the actual efficacy against death, which is probably higher than 95%.
- bryan0 5y ago
  And yet many people replying here on HN are questioning the results. Imagine how people interpret this in the general population.
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
At this point, fuck 'em. I have zero sympathy for anybody that has CHOSEN not to get the vaccine and then dies or suffers permanent lung damage from COVID. I want to put extra emphasis on the CHOICE here, because I know there are some people that for whatever health issue they have, they legitimately cannot get the vaccine.
- pcdoodle 5y ago
  Someone got radicalized this past year.
necovek 5y ago
OTOH, if you look at the numbers of deaths only, 150 died out of 1200 who got COVID after vaccination, for a death rate of 12.5%, compared to 2% non-vaccinated (18k out of 852k). This would suggest that the main benefit of a vaccine is in not getting infected in the first place, because you are worse off once you do. Or more likely, that there is so much data missing that it's useless to look at it this way. Generally, I still believe the problem with pro-vax movement is that they try to massage data in a way to show off bigger benefits than the data actually show, and then people see through it. Exactly like the no-vax people. Basically, I am vaccinated, but that's because I made my own risk assessment and despite the bullshit coming from both sides. Please, stop with the bullshit if you want people to be vaccinated!
- lilsoso 5y ago
  Based on your report, without having the facts at hand, I would guess that COVID is more lethal for the vaccinated because there are more elderly people in that demographic. What I've found amusing is Michael Burry's concerns over the vaccination for younger populations in his recent tweets. He tends to delete all of his tweets relatively quickly, so they're only available for a flash.
- pgwhalen 5y ago
  This is a very strange and misleading way of looking at the data. For one, what you call infections are actually hospitalizations. Your analysis also neglects to consider the differences between the vaccinated and un-vaccinated populations; specifically, older Americans are more likely to be vaccinated than younger ones, which already puts these percentages on uneven footing.
  - necovek 5y ago
    Just like claiming 150 vs 1200 total deaths is: that's my point, people are coming up with guesses as to what explains the numbers, but the numbers are out there. Basically, lets stop pretending what vaccines really do, and say the truth, and you'll likely get more participation: 1. vaccines reduce the chances of you catching or dying from COVID: by how much, impossible to tell yet 2. you can start increasing your exposure to other people without increasing the health risk to yourself or your family (iow, behave normally) 3. you help everyone by reducing the chances of transmission, and because we don't know real world efficacy (1), the more people get vaccinated, the better 4. if you are concerned with health risks from vaccination, note that they are likely the same as from COVID but lesser — if you are not getting vaccinated, follow the same social distancing rules you would otherwise. While all of the above is widely known, that's not how it's communicated, which leads to people becoming sceptical of the vaccine. Basically, it's the common elitist "we don't trust people are smart/reasonable enough to make their own call, so we'll feed them some propaganda".
patrickthebold 5y ago
Wouldn't this always have been true?
- leokennis 5y ago
  Yes. But this is 2021. I could release a study “water is wet” and some idiots would still not believe it due to their mistrust of anyone less dumb than themselves.
Proven 5y ago
Those who die from vaccine-related complications are not classified as Wuhan Flu victims, I presume?
faeriechangling 5y ago
>An Associated Press analysis of available government data from May shows It really irritates me how news organizations think this is appropriate. I can't even share this because I can't validate that it isn't a complete lie. I refuse to accept a secret analysis of data as credible. Sources buried, no breakdown of how the analysis was done, worthless article, yet this is routine for journalism.
- jiveturkey 5y ago
  I mean, I agree with you, but it's journalism, not a research paper. This article states uncategorically, front and center, that the source of the information, CDC, won't publish this stat themselves due to "limitations in the data". The "analysis" is pretty obvious how AP did it, from the text. Again, I feel your pain every day, but this particular article seems fine to me! They aren't pretending to possess secret information and thus be able to have secretly derived insights. It's designed to be read in the course of 2 minutes, tops. Within that category, it's far far better than the 99% of drivel out there. It's a shame to fit it into that class of junk journalism.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    No, but they're presenting it alongside current-day data, "breaking news" etc. That's a choice.

21 points by bryan0 5y ago

In other news, water is wet, most accidents happen with 10 miles of the home, and most shark attacks happen in shallow water. In other words, no shit. Imagine that, all the vaccinated people aren’t getting the virus, and therefore not dying from it. Wow, fucking ground breaking science.

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
There are people disputing that the vaccine prevents COVID. When you point out that the studies and data show that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines both reduce the chances of getting COVID by ~95%, they use that as proof. But of course, they don't sit there and say that it's "only" a 95% reduction, instead they just make simple bad-faith claims that "the vaccines don't prevent you from getting COVID". So yeah...there are people that think the vaccines are worthless.
- necovek 5y ago
  If your numbers are correct, and the OP report is correct and statistically significant, then we are looking at a death rate of (12.5% x 5% =) 0.6%, compared to 2% otherwise. So, while a huge 3x improvement, it's not as article worthy or vaccine-supporting like comparing 150 to 18k people. I do actually believe that people who were on the edge, seeing such disingenious reporting, decide to have even less trust. 5% is 100%-95%, and 12.5% is the death rate of vaccinated people who got COVID (150/1200).
  - necovek 5y ago
    To explain the discrepancy in absolute numbers, I'd likely turn to pattern of behaviour: most (95%?) of the world hasn't gotten COVID yet, and most of those who are or would get vaccinated early exhibit a pattern of behaviour that's less risky anyway. But saying the actual numbers like you are 3x more likely to die if unvaccinated with equal exposure, doesn't quite sell it the same way (because it means 30% would die anyway). I still believe it's worth it, but that's what the numbers say, and it's not as black and white anymore.
  - rspeele 5y ago
    Per the article (1200 hospitalizations, 150 deaths) 12.5% is the death rate among vaccinated people who were hospitalized for COVID, not who got COVID. So you're missing an extra probability multiplication to account for what percentage of vaccinated people who do catch COVID go on to have a severe enough case to be hospitalized. That should be a big difference.
    - necovek 5y ago
      Sure, my bad, but my point was to compare incidence rates for vaccinated vs not, and 18k deaths are also out of 853k hospitalizations. Keeping the comparison valid even if badly "misnamed", if hospitalization rates are the same (which are not reported here).
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    Your 0.6% is pretty sensitive to the actual efficacy against death, which is probably higher than 95%.
bryan0 5y ago
And yet many people replying here on HN are questioning the results. Imagine how people interpret this in the general population.

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago

At this point, fuck 'em. I have zero sympathy for anybody that has CHOSEN not to get the vaccine and then dies or suffers permanent lung damage from COVID. I want to put extra emphasis on the CHOICE here, because I know there are some people that for whatever health issue they have, they legitimately cannot get the vaccine.

pcdoodle 5y ago
Someone got radicalized this past year.

necovek 5y ago

OTOH, if you look at the numbers of deaths only, 150 died out of 1200 who got COVID after vaccination, for a death rate of 12.5%, compared to 2% non-vaccinated (18k out of 852k). This would suggest that the main benefit of a vaccine is in not getting infected in the first place, because you are worse off once you do. Or more likely, that there is so much data missing that it's useless to look at it this way. Generally, I still believe the problem with pro-vax movement is that they try to massage data in a way to show off bigger benefits than the data actually show, and then people see through it. Exactly like the no-vax people. Basically, I am vaccinated, but that's because I made my own risk assessment and despite the bullshit coming from both sides. Please, stop with the bullshit if you want people to be vaccinated!

lilsoso 5y ago
Based on your report, without having the facts at hand, I would guess that COVID is more lethal for the vaccinated because there are more elderly people in that demographic. What I've found amusing is Michael Burry's concerns over the vaccination for younger populations in his recent tweets. He tends to delete all of his tweets relatively quickly, so they're only available for a flash.
pgwhalen 5y ago
This is a very strange and misleading way of looking at the data. For one, what you call infections are actually hospitalizations. Your analysis also neglects to consider the differences between the vaccinated and un-vaccinated populations; specifically, older Americans are more likely to be vaccinated than younger ones, which already puts these percentages on uneven footing.
- necovek 5y ago
  Just like claiming 150 vs 1200 total deaths is: that's my point, people are coming up with guesses as to what explains the numbers, but the numbers are out there. Basically, lets stop pretending what vaccines really do, and say the truth, and you'll likely get more participation: 1. vaccines reduce the chances of you catching or dying from COVID: by how much, impossible to tell yet 2. you can start increasing your exposure to other people without increasing the health risk to yourself or your family (iow, behave normally) 3. you help everyone by reducing the chances of transmission, and because we don't know real world efficacy (1), the more people get vaccinated, the better 4. if you are concerned with health risks from vaccination, note that they are likely the same as from COVID but lesser — if you are not getting vaccinated, follow the same social distancing rules you would otherwise. While all of the above is widely known, that's not how it's communicated, which leads to people becoming sceptical of the vaccine. Basically, it's the common elitist "we don't trust people are smart/reasonable enough to make their own call, so we'll feed them some propaganda".

patrickthebold 5y ago

Wouldn't this always have been true?

leokennis 5y ago
Yes. But this is 2021. I could release a study “water is wet” and some idiots would still not believe it due to their mistrust of anyone less dumb than themselves.

Proven 5y ago

Those who die from vaccine-related complications are not classified as Wuhan Flu victims, I presume?

faeriechangling 5y ago

>An Associated Press analysis of available government data from May shows It really irritates me how news organizations think this is appropriate. I can't even share this because I can't validate that it isn't a complete lie. I refuse to accept a secret analysis of data as credible. Sources buried, no breakdown of how the analysis was done, worthless article, yet this is routine for journalism.

jiveturkey 5y ago
I mean, I agree with you, but it's journalism, not a research paper. This article states uncategorically, front and center, that the source of the information, CDC, won't publish this stat themselves due to "limitations in the data". The "analysis" is pretty obvious how AP did it, from the text. Again, I feel your pain every day, but this particular article seems fine to me! They aren't pretending to possess secret information and thus be able to have secretly derived insights. It's designed to be read in the course of 2 minutes, tops. Within that category, it's far far better than the 99% of drivel out there. It's a shame to fit it into that class of junk journalism.
- atatatat 5y ago
  No, but they're presenting it alongside current-day data, "breaking news" etc. That's a choice.