6 ms·

The next sentence is: From May 2 to June 5, the efficacy rate in preventing hospitalization was 98.2%, compared with 93% from June 6 to July 3 That's a 4x hig

by 0-_-0 5y ago

The next sentence is: From May 2 to June 5, the efficacy rate in preventing hospitalization was 98.2%, compared with 93% from June 6 to July 3 That's a 4x higher chance of hospitalisation.

hellomyguys 5y ago
It could be worse. It could have gone from a 99.9% to 99.1% in preventing hospitalization. That would be an 9x higher chance of hospitalization!
- krona 5y ago
  That's the difference between extended lockdown periods and normality in many countries.
  - kurthr 5y ago
    I think you're confusing population wide death rates with post infection hospitalization rates. There's about 10x between death and hospitalization and there is about a 3-10x difference between population vs infection (for many countries 10-33% is a reasonable range of infection... except for China/Taiwan/Korea which are in the <1% range).
- davidf18 5y ago
  Infection rate protection of 64% is the key number because of Long Covid. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/health/covid-19-patients.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/health/covid-19-patients.... A study of 2 million people with Covid. 1/4 had symptoms 1 month and later after the initial infection. 1/5 of those were asymptomatic -- they did not know that they had Covid until they complained of health issues consistent with others who had Covid and then were tested. Areas of the US that are not well vaccinated will be having real problems, but even those that are vaccinated will have to be very, very careful.
vletal 5y ago
Yeah, but it's still an astonishing result. Most of the non mRNA vaccines have efficacies below 90%, not taking into account the delta variant.
- blueblisters 5y ago
  I think efficacy is usually defined as preventing symptoms, a higher bar than preventing hospitalizations. I believe most vaccines were extremely successful at preventing hospitalizations. Edit: Pfizer's primary endpoint was efficacy against lab-confirmed Covid-19 [1]. [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
  - azinman2 5y ago
    This is pure anecdata, but I’m hearing nearly daily from a friend in Indonesia about someone he knows dying of Covid. They’ve all had their sinovac shots.
longtom 5y ago
When you look at rare events, then it is easy to get a quadrupling (or more) due to tail effects.
refurb 5y ago
That's the relative risk increase. What's the absolute risk increase? Varies by age, but for a young person we're talking the risk going from 0.001% to 0.004%.
- ralfn 5y ago
  That's not a one time risk though! So far it seems a person can be infected multiple times. Say you get Covid once a year, that's 0.004% per year. Also, wether you need hospitalisation or not, doesn't change the fact that some people are having permanent issues like lost their stamina, hair loss, loss of smell. I have a coworker with neurological issues, but he is not in a hospital. So the big question is: how effective are the vaccines against long Covid? And we need that number at or below 0.001% or Covid will overtake other diseases in terms of life expectancies and QoL implications. Assuming we would get once every one to two years. That's just too much rounds of Russian roulette.
  - dtech 5y ago
    You are much less likely to get infected with the same variant once you've recovered from it, and once vaccinations and natural immunity is more widespread worldwide new variants will arise at a slower rate, similar to flu or cold.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
Complaining that your glass is 7% empty while mine is 93% full. This is a relatively good result.
- 0-_-0 5y ago
  I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out that the Delta variant also has a higher chance of hospitalisation, not just getting sick.
hestefisk 5y ago
How do you conclude that?!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- webkike 5y ago
  The percent of hospitalization increased from 1.8% to 7%, which is about four times. This is basically lying with statistics
  - simonh 5y ago
    As I understand it that's still better than the non-mRNA vaccines, because it's an increase from a very small rate. What exactly is the lie?
    - webkike 5y ago
      The “lie” (it’s not a lie, it’s just deceiving) is saying that it’s a four times increase. You could also say “6% increase”, but that sounds smaller
Voloskaya 5y ago
It's not as easy. Number of cases in that second period are ~10x the number of cases in that first period. Which means you have more propagation, potentially affecting more at-risk chunk of the population. E.g. the very few cases happening in May-June may have beeen predominantly occuring in young people with extensive social contacts, now that the transmission is going up it can spread to more isolated communities (e.g. old people with less social contacts, that are more at risk of isolation). There is not a single number that you can look in isolation that will give you an answer.
- loceng 5y ago
  Not including that people who are vaccinated's guard is down more, will likely be gathering more with wider social networks, etc; what are the chances an escape mutant variant occurs that spreads wide, has long delay before causing deadly effects, etc? And when does Ivermectin come into mainstream and every COVID discussion? Based on the evidence it looks like used as a preventative, give it to literally everyone for 2 weeks, and we could close to abolish COVID and variants. The suppression of conversation and scientific debate is the biggest problem out of all of this. Edit to add: whomever downvoted this, you're part of the problem of suppression - good for you.
  - lornemalvo 5y ago
    It does not look like Ivermectin would provide a substantial benefit: https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06348-5 https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s128...
    - loceng 5y ago
      I'll do 99 better for you: https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ - "Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 100 studies, 63 peer reviewed, 61 with results comparing treatment and control groups." COVID, Ivermectin, and the Crime of the Century DarkHorse Podcast with Pierre Kory & Bret Weinstein https://vimeo.com/557811163 https://vimeo.com/557811163 (2.5 hours; deleted by YouTube) Joe Rogan then recently had Bret Weinstein and Pierre Kory on his podcast to raise awareness of issue https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=7h1KV1toS6Ws3t-XdBZrow https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=7... (3 hours - heavily repeat of what was said in link before; Spotify desktop or mobile app lets you watch video) How to save the world, in three easy [includes inventor of mRNA, if you care about credentials] https://vimeo.com/562724784 https://vimeo.com/562724784 (3.5 hours) Bret Weinstein (evolutionary biologist) and Geert Vanden Bossche (virologist) explaining in lay how mRNA vaccine skips a step in innate immune response and may cause problem with escape variants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNyAovuUxro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNyAovuUxro (~2 hours) Lots of ongoing updates from them: Dr. Pierre Kory - https://twitter.com/pierreKory/ https://twitter.com/pierreKory/ Dr. Robert Malone - https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD Dr. Bret Weinstein - https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein Two other main resources/organizations of doctors posting regular updates of latest data/charts, etc: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ / http://flccc.net/ http://flccc.net/ (same site) https://bird-group.org/ https://bird-group.org/
alex_c 5y ago
Here's a similar study for Ontario, breaking down efficacy based on variant: https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaCoronavirus/comments/oe6ajn/canadian_preprint_data_shows_even_single_dose_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaCoronavirus/comments/oe6ajn/c... Two observations: * as the top comment points out, the confidence intervals matter * the numbers are all over the place I don't know the data for the Israel study, but I'm not sure we can confidently conclude something as specific as "4x higher chance of hospitalization".

by 0-_-0 5y ago

The next sentence is: From May 2 to June 5, the efficacy rate in preventing hospitalization was 98.2%, compared with 93% from June 6 to July 3 That's a 4x higher chance of hospitalisation.

hellomyguys 5y ago

It could be worse. It could have gone from a 99.9% to 99.1% in preventing hospitalization. That would be an 9x higher chance of hospitalization!

krona 5y ago
That's the difference between extended lockdown periods and normality in many countries.
- kurthr 5y ago
  I think you're confusing population wide death rates with post infection hospitalization rates. There's about 10x between death and hospitalization and there is about a 3-10x difference between population vs infection (for many countries 10-33% is a reasonable range of infection... except for China/Taiwan/Korea which are in the <1% range).
davidf18 5y ago
Infection rate protection of 64% is the key number because of Long Covid. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/health/covid-19-patients.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/health/covid-19-patients.... A study of 2 million people with Covid. 1/4 had symptoms 1 month and later after the initial infection. 1/5 of those were asymptomatic -- they did not know that they had Covid until they complained of health issues consistent with others who had Covid and then were tested. Areas of the US that are not well vaccinated will be having real problems, but even those that are vaccinated will have to be very, very careful.

vletal 5y ago

Yeah, but it's still an astonishing result. Most of the non mRNA vaccines have efficacies below 90%, not taking into account the delta variant.

blueblisters 5y ago
I think efficacy is usually defined as preventing symptoms, a higher bar than preventing hospitalizations. I believe most vaccines were extremely successful at preventing hospitalizations. Edit: Pfizer's primary endpoint was efficacy against lab-confirmed Covid-19 [1]. [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
- azinman2 5y ago
  This is pure anecdata, but I’m hearing nearly daily from a friend in Indonesia about someone he knows dying of Covid. They’ve all had their sinovac shots.

longtom 5y ago

When you look at rare events, then it is easy to get a quadrupling (or more) due to tail effects.

refurb 5y ago

That's the relative risk increase. What's the absolute risk increase? Varies by age, but for a young person we're talking the risk going from 0.001% to 0.004%.

ralfn 5y ago
That's not a one time risk though! So far it seems a person can be infected multiple times. Say you get Covid once a year, that's 0.004% per year. Also, wether you need hospitalisation or not, doesn't change the fact that some people are having permanent issues like lost their stamina, hair loss, loss of smell. I have a coworker with neurological issues, but he is not in a hospital. So the big question is: how effective are the vaccines against long Covid? And we need that number at or below 0.001% or Covid will overtake other diseases in terms of life expectancies and QoL implications. Assuming we would get once every one to two years. That's just too much rounds of Russian roulette.
- dtech 5y ago
  You are much less likely to get infected with the same variant once you've recovered from it, and once vaccinations and natural immunity is more widespread worldwide new variants will arise at a slower rate, similar to flu or cold.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

Complaining that your glass is 7% empty while mine is 93% full. This is a relatively good result.

0-_-0 5y ago
I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out that the Delta variant also has a higher chance of hospitalisation, not just getting sick.

hestefisk 5y ago

How do you conclude that?!

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
webkike 5y ago
The percent of hospitalization increased from 1.8% to 7%, which is about four times. This is basically lying with statistics
- simonh 5y ago
  As I understand it that's still better than the non-mRNA vaccines, because it's an increase from a very small rate. What exactly is the lie?
  - webkike 5y ago
    The “lie” (it’s not a lie, it’s just deceiving) is saying that it’s a four times increase. You could also say “6% increase”, but that sounds smaller

Voloskaya 5y ago

It's not as easy. Number of cases in that second period are ~10x the number of cases in that first period. Which means you have more propagation, potentially affecting more at-risk chunk of the population. E.g. the very few cases happening in May-June may have beeen predominantly occuring in young people with extensive social contacts, now that the transmission is going up it can spread to more isolated communities (e.g. old people with less social contacts, that are more at risk of isolation). There is not a single number that you can look in isolation that will give you an answer.

loceng 5y ago
Not including that people who are vaccinated's guard is down more, will likely be gathering more with wider social networks, etc; what are the chances an escape mutant variant occurs that spreads wide, has long delay before causing deadly effects, etc? And when does Ivermectin come into mainstream and every COVID discussion? Based on the evidence it looks like used as a preventative, give it to literally everyone for 2 weeks, and we could close to abolish COVID and variants. The suppression of conversation and scientific debate is the biggest problem out of all of this. Edit to add: whomever downvoted this, you're part of the problem of suppression - good for you.
- lornemalvo 5y ago
  It does not look like Ivermectin would provide a substantial benefit: https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06348-5 https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s128...
  - loceng 5y ago
    I'll do 99 better for you: https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ - "Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 100 studies, 63 peer reviewed, 61 with results comparing treatment and control groups." COVID, Ivermectin, and the Crime of the Century DarkHorse Podcast with Pierre Kory & Bret Weinstein https://vimeo.com/557811163 https://vimeo.com/557811163 (2.5 hours; deleted by YouTube) Joe Rogan then recently had Bret Weinstein and Pierre Kory on his podcast to raise awareness of issue https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=7h1KV1toS6Ws3t-XdBZrow https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=7... (3 hours - heavily repeat of what was said in link before; Spotify desktop or mobile app lets you watch video) How to save the world, in three easy [includes inventor of mRNA, if you care about credentials] https://vimeo.com/562724784 https://vimeo.com/562724784 (3.5 hours) Bret Weinstein (evolutionary biologist) and Geert Vanden Bossche (virologist) explaining in lay how mRNA vaccine skips a step in innate immune response and may cause problem with escape variants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNyAovuUxro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNyAovuUxro (~2 hours) Lots of ongoing updates from them: Dr. Pierre Kory - https://twitter.com/pierreKory/ https://twitter.com/pierreKory/ Dr. Robert Malone - https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD Dr. Bret Weinstein - https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein Two other main resources/organizations of doctors posting regular updates of latest data/charts, etc: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ / http://flccc.net/ http://flccc.net/ (same site) https://bird-group.org/ https://bird-group.org/

alex_c 5y ago

Here's a similar study for Ontario, breaking down efficacy based on variant: https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaCoronavirus/comments/oe6ajn/canadian_preprint_data_shows_even_single_dose_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaCoronavirus/comments/oe6ajn/c... Two observations: * as the top comment points out, the confidence intervals matter * the numbers are all over the place I don't know the data for the Israel study, but I'm not sure we can confidently conclude something as specific as "4x higher chance of hospitalization".