4 ms·

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

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

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.