10 ms·

This seems to be confirmed by data collected in Israel: [0] > More than 7,700 new cases of the virus have been detected during the most recent wave starting in

This seems to be confirmed by data collected in Israel: [0] > More than 7,700 new cases of the virus have been detected during the most recent wave starting in May, but just 72 of the confirmed cases were reported in people who were known to have been infected previously – that is, less than 1% of the new cases. > Roughly 40% of new cases – or more than 3,000 patients – involved people who had been infected despite being vaccinated. They calculated that Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection. [0] https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762

criticaltinker 5y ago
This has been shared in other discussions on HN but no one has been able to find a peer-reviewed publication or official source supporting the data. Unless you can provide a reference to a primary source, your comment must be dismissed as misinformation.
- kbelder 5y ago
  "Coronavirus patients who recovered from the virus were far less likely to become infected during the latest wave of the pandemic than people who were vaccinated against COVID, according to numbers presented to the Israeli Health Ministry." Nobody is making the claim it came from an academic journal. It was supposedly in data released by an Israeli government agency. Now, I don't know if that's true or not; but it's wrong to suggest anything that doesn't come from a peer-reviewed paper is misinformation.
  - criticaltinker 5y ago
    > it's wrong to suggest anything that doesn't come from a peer-reviewed paper is misinformation I agree with you - I updated my comment to be more clear in this regard. > It was supposedly in data released by an Israeli government agency Correct and no one has been able to find an official public source for this data. Unless someone can provide such a reference, I hope you agree that we must consider it misinformation.
- mikem170 5y ago
  Yep, preliminary data. Do you think they made it up? Apparently health officials in Israel and elsewhere are not dismissing this as misinformation. Those preliminary are consistent with this study which found the same low risk of reinfection [0]: > the estimated risk was low (0.1% [95% CI: 0.08-0.11%]) with no evidence of waning immunity for up to 7 months following primary infection. Also there's this, indicating the vaccine may not be as effective as time goes on [1]: > Researchers at the Ministry of Health took another look at the effectiveness of the vaccine, limiting their analysis to the surge from June 6 to July 3. In that period, they estimated, the effectiveness of the vaccine at preventing infections was down to 64 percent. > More recently, they ran another analysis. This time, they looked at cases between June 20 and July 17. In that period, they estimated, the vaccine’s effectiveness was even lower: just 39 percent against infection. Not a published study, but I assume that the Israeli Ministry of Health is not making up numbers. Are there any published studies to the contrary? These are the numbers we have at the moment. I assume more will come, from the U.K. where they are also tracking stuff like this better than in the U.S. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209951/pdf/RMV-9999-e2260.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209951/pdf/RMV... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/23/science/covid-vaccine-israel-pfizer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/23/science/covid-vaccine-isr...
  - criticaltinker 5y ago
    The first paper you cited does not consider vaccinated individuals, so it doesn't support your original comment that people who were vaccinated "were 6.72 times more likely to get infected". The second reference does not provide a citation for the "39% efficiency against infection" claim. But some digging turned up the Israeli Ministry of Health press release from May [1], which states: - "From the epidemiological analysis by public health services in the Ministry of Health, it is evident that since June 6th there was marked decline in the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection (64%) and symptomatic illness (64%)." In summary [1] also does not support the "6.72 times more likely to get infected" claim. And since the data backing [1] does not appear to be publicly available nor subject to any peer-review process or other academic scrutiny, it should be taken with a big grain of salt. [1] https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/05072021-03 https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/05072021-03

criticaltinker 5y ago

This has been shared in other discussions on HN but no one has been able to find a peer-reviewed publication or official source supporting the data. Unless you can provide a reference to a primary source, your comment must be dismissed as misinformation.

kbelder 5y ago
"Coronavirus patients who recovered from the virus were far less likely to become infected during the latest wave of the pandemic than people who were vaccinated against COVID, according to numbers presented to the Israeli Health Ministry." Nobody is making the claim it came from an academic journal. It was supposedly in data released by an Israeli government agency. Now, I don't know if that's true or not; but it's wrong to suggest anything that doesn't come from a peer-reviewed paper is misinformation.
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  > it's wrong to suggest anything that doesn't come from a peer-reviewed paper is misinformation I agree with you - I updated my comment to be more clear in this regard. > It was supposedly in data released by an Israeli government agency Correct and no one has been able to find an official public source for this data. Unless someone can provide such a reference, I hope you agree that we must consider it misinformation.
mikem170 5y ago
Yep, preliminary data. Do you think they made it up? Apparently health officials in Israel and elsewhere are not dismissing this as misinformation. Those preliminary are consistent with this study which found the same low risk of reinfection [0]: > the estimated risk was low (0.1% [95% CI: 0.08-0.11%]) with no evidence of waning immunity for up to 7 months following primary infection. Also there's this, indicating the vaccine may not be as effective as time goes on [1]: > Researchers at the Ministry of Health took another look at the effectiveness of the vaccine, limiting their analysis to the surge from June 6 to July 3. In that period, they estimated, the effectiveness of the vaccine at preventing infections was down to 64 percent. > More recently, they ran another analysis. This time, they looked at cases between June 20 and July 17. In that period, they estimated, the vaccine’s effectiveness was even lower: just 39 percent against infection. Not a published study, but I assume that the Israeli Ministry of Health is not making up numbers. Are there any published studies to the contrary? These are the numbers we have at the moment. I assume more will come, from the U.K. where they are also tracking stuff like this better than in the U.S. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209951/pdf/RMV-9999-e2260.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209951/pdf/RMV... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/23/science/covid-vaccine-israel-pfizer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/23/science/covid-vaccine-isr...
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  The first paper you cited does not consider vaccinated individuals, so it doesn't support your original comment that people who were vaccinated "were 6.72 times more likely to get infected". The second reference does not provide a citation for the "39% efficiency against infection" claim. But some digging turned up the Israeli Ministry of Health press release from May [1], which states: - "From the epidemiological analysis by public health services in the Ministry of Health, it is evident that since June 6th there was marked decline in the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection (64%) and symptomatic illness (64%)." In summary [1] also does not support the "6.72 times more likely to get infected" claim. And since the data backing [1] does not appear to be publicly available nor subject to any peer-review process or other academic scrutiny, it should be taken with a big grain of salt. [1] https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/05072021-03 https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/05072021-03