3 ms·
It's even worse than that. Aside from deviations, this is a main point in the article: > The death rate if infected was always going to be higher in the vaccin
by azakai 5y ago
It's even worse than that. Aside from deviations, this is a main point in the article:
> The death rate if infected was always going to be higher in the vaccinated groups if most of the vaccinated were those likely to die in the first place.
IOW: Those most likely to die were most likely to get vaccinated. Obviously true, but not interesting - a correlation we need to account for. When you do control for prior risk, the results are as expected, i.e., vaccines make you much safer.
The quoted tweet ("100x") was inaccurate and exaggerated. That's worth briefly correcting. But the lengthy article's points are only minor and pedantic, and do not change what we know, which is that our vaccines are very effective.
- asdfkljgisjg9 5y agoEverybody is misrepresenting this article badly. Here is what it says that is important: > The person who incorrectly assumes that “with the vaccine, even if I get infected I am less likely to die than I would be without the vaccine,” will be more likely to engage in behavior that risks infection. They may become the “it’s just a flu bro” of the vaccinated. > If the lack of observed layered protection were made more explicit then people may choose to still wear masks and social distance, to further reduce their exposure in addition to vaccination. They may choose to go to fewer social events. This in turn would reduce the infection rate, and reduce the probability a mutation that evades vaccination finds a host to practice on. (While writing this article, the White House changed its masking recommendation for the vaccinated)