3 ms·

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

by 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
  - necovek 5y ago
    Thanks for bothering :) And sure, I agree it's implied that people are getting equal exposure to the virus but vaccinated are getting infected less often, but that's hard to quantify. And you are right, my initial take was completely off mark because of this. Still, I am guessing there's at list a single digit multiplier (2-3x) for risky behaviour of the unvaccinated group: they are more likely to also shun masks, mingle with more people, etc. But it's a guess only. So again, my problem is with ignoring all of that and spouting some numbers out — they are always going to be misleading. CDC did not do an analysis for a reason.

by bryan0 5y ago

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
- necovek 5y ago
  Thanks for bothering :) And sure, I agree it's implied that people are getting equal exposure to the virus but vaccinated are getting infected less often, but that's hard to quantify. And you are right, my initial take was completely off mark because of this. Still, I am guessing there's at list a single digit multiplier (2-3x) for risky behaviour of the unvaccinated group: they are more likely to also shun masks, mingle with more people, etc. But it's a guess only. So again, my problem is with ignoring all of that and spouting some numbers out — they are always going to be misleading. CDC did not do an analysis for a reason.