4 ms·

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

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".
  - pgwhalen 5y ago
    Who is pretending? You managed to come up with an irrelevant and misleading take on the data. Do you expect the media to consider all hypothetical incorrect ways of interpreting the data, and say why they are incorrect? That doesn't seem like a reasonable ask. I'm not sure in what sense those four things are not being communicated.
bryan0 5y ago
> 150 died out of 1200 who got COVID after vaccination You’re misinterpreting a key stat from the article: those 1200 were hospitalized for Covid, not simply infected. > 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. Replace “infected” with “hospitalized” and your point is valid. As is though, it’s off by several orders of magnitude.
- necovek 5y ago
  Right, my bad: but the same holds true for non-vaccinated: it's 18k out of 853k hospitalized, so it's still apples to apples. The missing factor is, indeed, hospitalization rates for vaccinated and for non-vaccinated.
  - bryan0 5y ago
    Except that your main point is wrong. The data shows that if you are infected with covid, then you are much better off being vaccinated. You stated the opposite. It's not a subtle point, it's one of the main purposes of the vaccine.
    - necovek 5y ago
      But the article never states what the hospitalization rates are for both populations, which is where we'd hope vaccines work. Without it, we can only assume them to be the same (they could be worse, for all we know: I don't believe they are, just stating that we are not given data for it), and then we get the rough 3x lower chances of death for vaccinated people. The point is that based on the article alone, we can't say anything else about the benefits of the vaccine. Basically, either share complete, verifiable data, or don't share cherry-picked data is my point.
      - bryan0 5y ago
        I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but here are the relevant data points from the article to determine order-of-magnitude hospitalization rates for the 2 groups: > fully vaccinated people accounted for fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations. That’s about 0.1%. > About 63% of all vaccine-eligible Americans — those 12 and older — have received at least one dose, and 53% are fully vaccinated
randomhodler84 5y ago
There is no pro-vax people. There are smart people that believe in science, and they are morons who don’t believe in science, and would rather push their ignorance into others. Get with it. Get vax’d ASAP!
- slver 5y ago
  That's not a realistic interpretation of social dynamics. On every issue, you'll find lots of people on both sides who have no idea why they take the position they take, they've just decided they're on the "cool" side, the other side are idiots and wanna wield that "I'm right and you're wrong" hammer for all its worth. And sure I've seen this happen with vaccines. I've been attacked for discussing the side-effects of AstraZeneca for example. Not in context of "don't get vaccinated" mind you, but in context of "which vaccine each of us should choose".
  - randomhodler84 5y ago
    That is why we have science, math, physics. It provides answers based on observation of physical phenomenon and evidence. The social battle is one of ignorance. There is no “two sides” to confirmed scientific fact. When it does occur, you can bet it is borne of ignorance.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      Never seen any stories of conflict of interest in research/other issues that could lead to data not being a 100% truthful passthrough...?
    - slver 5y ago
      See, this is fundamental misunderstanding of science.
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  The phrasing "believe in science" makes me cringe honestly. The whole antivaxxers stereotype of provaxxers is that they blindly trust authorities and institutions that proclaim themselves to be scientific while not doing any legwork themselves and think that they're scientific when they're effectively operating off faith in institutions and people with questionable credibility and integrity and conflicts of interest. I have seen no shortage of antivaxxers with quite a bit of brainpower especially recently. I "believe" that the majority of uncorrelated data and analysis from different areas and hospitals and laboratories and morgues and universities and contact tracers and clinical data and so on that have demonstrated a grave risk from COVID, the efficacy of the vaccine, and the risk of the vaccine being outweighed by the risk of COVID. I recognize some science does support the anti-vax point of view but I do not believe it sufficiently makes the case to support their point of view, and that the analysis and data gathering I've seen so far from that camp has been flawed.

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".
- pgwhalen 5y ago
  Who is pretending? You managed to come up with an irrelevant and misleading take on the data. Do you expect the media to consider all hypothetical incorrect ways of interpreting the data, and say why they are incorrect? That doesn't seem like a reasonable ask. I'm not sure in what sense those four things are not being communicated.

bryan0 5y ago

> 150 died out of 1200 who got COVID after vaccination You’re misinterpreting a key stat from the article: those 1200 were hospitalized for Covid, not simply infected. > 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. Replace “infected” with “hospitalized” and your point is valid. As is though, it’s off by several orders of magnitude.

necovek 5y ago
Right, my bad: but the same holds true for non-vaccinated: it's 18k out of 853k hospitalized, so it's still apples to apples. The missing factor is, indeed, hospitalization rates for vaccinated and for non-vaccinated.
- bryan0 5y ago
  Except that your main point is wrong. The data shows that if you are infected with covid, then you are much better off being vaccinated. You stated the opposite. It's not a subtle point, it's one of the main purposes of the vaccine.
  - necovek 5y ago
    But the article never states what the hospitalization rates are for both populations, which is where we'd hope vaccines work. Without it, we can only assume them to be the same (they could be worse, for all we know: I don't believe they are, just stating that we are not given data for it), and then we get the rough 3x lower chances of death for vaccinated people. The point is that based on the article alone, we can't say anything else about the benefits of the vaccine. Basically, either share complete, verifiable data, or don't share cherry-picked data is my point.
    - bryan0 5y ago
      I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but here are the relevant data points from the article to determine order-of-magnitude hospitalization rates for the 2 groups: > fully vaccinated people accounted for fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations. That’s about 0.1%. > About 63% of all vaccine-eligible Americans — those 12 and older — have received at least one dose, and 53% are fully vaccinated

randomhodler84 5y ago

There is no pro-vax people. There are smart people that believe in science, and they are morons who don’t believe in science, and would rather push their ignorance into others. Get with it. Get vax’d ASAP!

slver 5y ago
That's not a realistic interpretation of social dynamics. On every issue, you'll find lots of people on both sides who have no idea why they take the position they take, they've just decided they're on the "cool" side, the other side are idiots and wanna wield that "I'm right and you're wrong" hammer for all its worth. And sure I've seen this happen with vaccines. I've been attacked for discussing the side-effects of AstraZeneca for example. Not in context of "don't get vaccinated" mind you, but in context of "which vaccine each of us should choose".
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  That is why we have science, math, physics. It provides answers based on observation of physical phenomenon and evidence. The social battle is one of ignorance. There is no “two sides” to confirmed scientific fact. When it does occur, you can bet it is borne of ignorance.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    Never seen any stories of conflict of interest in research/other issues that could lead to data not being a 100% truthful passthrough...?
  - slver 5y ago
    See, this is fundamental misunderstanding of science.
faeriechangling 5y ago
The phrasing "believe in science" makes me cringe honestly. The whole antivaxxers stereotype of provaxxers is that they blindly trust authorities and institutions that proclaim themselves to be scientific while not doing any legwork themselves and think that they're scientific when they're effectively operating off faith in institutions and people with questionable credibility and integrity and conflicts of interest. I have seen no shortage of antivaxxers with quite a bit of brainpower especially recently. I "believe" that the majority of uncorrelated data and analysis from different areas and hospitals and laboratories and morgues and universities and contact tracers and clinical data and so on that have demonstrated a grave risk from COVID, the efficacy of the vaccine, and the risk of the vaccine being outweighed by the risk of COVID. I recognize some science does support the anti-vax point of view but I do not believe it sufficiently makes the case to support their point of view, and that the analysis and data gathering I've seen so far from that camp has been flawed.