7 ms·

Before anyone draws the wrong conclusions... 78.8% of the population above 12 are vaccinated. The remaining 21.2% make up about 40% of all hospitalizations. T

Before anyone draws the wrong conclusions... 78.8% of the population above 12 are vaccinated. The remaining 21.2% make up about 40% of all hospitalizations. The vaccines are incredibly effective and the situation in Israel does by no means indicate that they are not. Edit: Fixed 11.2% to 21.2%.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Don't you mean the remaining 21.2%?
- linuxhansl 5y ago
  Oops. Yes.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    I mean, don't you feel like this at least somewhat changes your conclusion then? Yes, the vaccines are quite effective, but now it means that the unvaccinated are only doubly overrepresented in new cases, which at least changes the calculus in my mind.
    - belltaco 5y ago
      The vaccinated folks are mostly old people and people with comorbidities, and the unvaccinated are mostly young and healthy people, so you're not comparing like for like.
rubicon33 5y ago
I think it's still concerning that 60% of hospitalizations are vaccinated patients. Even if 79% of the population is vaccinated.
- markdown 5y ago
  Best case, the Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective at preventing serious illness and death. This has been known since the beginning. If you vaccinate 100% of the total population, you'll find that 100% of hospitalised and dead patients have been fully vaccinated. TL;DR: This is only concerning if one doesn't properly grasp statistics. Most of us (self included) fail at this.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    I do properly grasp statistics, and your conclusion is unwarranted. If 79% of people are vaccinated, then if hypothetically 79% of the hospitalized people were vaccinated, it would mean the vaccine had absolutely 0% effectiveness. The fact that only 60% of the hospitalized are vaccinated means the vaccine is more effective than nothing (and the data on death is even better), but as time goes on it becomes clearer the vaccines are not the silver bullet many of us thought they would be.
    - jayd16 5y ago
      > If 79% of people are vaccinated, then if hypothetically 79% of the hospitalized people were vaccinated, it would mean the vaccine had absolutely 0% effectiveness. Incorrect. The vaccinations are targeted at the most vulnerable not distributed uniformly so this is not exactly right.
      - edanm 5y ago
        Just to be clear, I agree with your point that there is a difference in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated population (e.g. average age). But when you say "targeted" at the most vulnerable, I'm not sure how true that is. There's a pretty big push to get everyone vaccinated, including populations that have been reluctant to get vaccinated until now.
- jayd16 5y ago
  You're misrepresenting the situation. As the article says, only 58% of the population is vaccinated. Only 78.8% of the eligible population is vaccinated.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- belltaco 5y ago
  The vaccinated folks are mostly old people and people with comorbidities, and the unvaccinated are mostly young and healthy people, so you're not comparing like for like.
tracyhenry 5y ago
I will get downvoted... but really, 60% of the hospitalizations come from vaccinated population, does that really count as "incredibly effective"? Is that really what people were hoping for when Pfizer & Moderna announced 94%+ effectiveness?
- singhrac 5y ago
  In addition to the clear example of Simpson’s paradox presented here: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-... , I offer you the following intuition: if only 4 people in Israel were unvaccinated and 2 were in the hospital with 2 vaccinated patients, would you consider the vaccine effective? It’s important to look at the right numbers.
  - charbonneau 5y ago
    The Simpson's paradox seems to refer to something else: https://twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1428014414666420230 https://twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1428014414666420230
  - tracyhenry 5y ago
    I didn't say that the vaccine isn't effective. I'm saying this is nowhere near "incredibly effective". The post you cited is helpful. However, it is confusing the definition of efficacy. There were debates on what the efficacy meant when Pfizer and Moderna reported their high numbers. But there was *NO* definition saying that 94% efficacy means 94% of vaccinated people won't get SERIOUSLY sick. Most commonly, it meant either (1) 94% people will have lower chance of getting COVID (i.e. getting tested positive)[1], or (2) 94% people will have a lower chance of getting sick [2]. Now the post you cited essentially says 94% people won't get SERIOUSLY sick. This just proves that neither (1) or (2) above is true. [1] https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-explained.html https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-explai... [2] https://time.com/5945177/covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness/ https://time.com/5945177/covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness/
chaostheory 5y ago
I'm pro-vaccination, but there's no sugar coating the fact that %60 of hospitalizations are of previously vaccinated people. I don't know much about mRNA vaccines, but do mRNA vaccines induce sterilizing immunity?
- ssss11 5y ago
  Not sure what “sterilising immunity” is but the vaccines appear to reduce likelihood you will get Covid (not completely make you immune). If you then get it you are much less likely to end up in ICU or die, you may go to hospital though.
- est31 5y ago
  It's a statistical effect called Simpson's Paradox. The 60% is nothing to be worried about. https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-... https://twitter.com/jsm2334/status/1427465566210695178 https://twitter.com/jsm2334/status/1427465566210695178
  - charbonneau 5y ago
    The Simpson's Paradox seems to refer to something else: https://twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1428014414666420230 https://twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1428014414666420230
    - est31 5y ago
      If you go by what Simpson wrote, then maybe it is a different paradox. If you go by what most people are being taught the Simpson's paradox is, then no. Ultimately it's besides the point. The conflict is resolved by better statistics.
- vitaflo 5y ago
  If 100% of people were immunized then 100% of hospitalizations would be vaccinated people. This doesn’t mean vaccines aren’t effective.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
linuxhansl 5y ago
More data here: https://twitter.com/jsm2334/status/1427465003007942659?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/jsm2334/status/1427465003007942659?ref_s...
hammock 5y ago
Natural immunity is also incredibly effective. How many of the unvaccinated are recovered patients with natural immunity?
- lucb1e 5y ago
  That's news to me, I seem to remember news stories from last year that people were being infected multiple times and the immunity from having endured COVID-19 was not actually that good. Quickly trying to look this up with 'covid-19 reinfection' as query (trying to avoid confirmation bias in that search), the top hit on DDG is the USA CDC which writes: > Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated. --https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm Reinfection occurs much more frequently if you don't get vaccinated, if I am reading this right. Not sure I'd call "natural" immunity "also" or "incredibly" effective.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Don't you mean the remaining 21.2%?

linuxhansl 5y ago
Oops. Yes.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  I mean, don't you feel like this at least somewhat changes your conclusion then? Yes, the vaccines are quite effective, but now it means that the unvaccinated are only doubly overrepresented in new cases, which at least changes the calculus in my mind.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    The vaccinated folks are mostly old people and people with comorbidities, and the unvaccinated are mostly young and healthy people, so you're not comparing like for like.

rubicon33 5y ago

I think it's still concerning that 60% of hospitalizations are vaccinated patients. Even if 79% of the population is vaccinated.

markdown 5y ago
Best case, the Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective at preventing serious illness and death. This has been known since the beginning. If you vaccinate 100% of the total population, you'll find that 100% of hospitalised and dead patients have been fully vaccinated. TL;DR: This is only concerning if one doesn't properly grasp statistics. Most of us (self included) fail at this.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  I do properly grasp statistics, and your conclusion is unwarranted. If 79% of people are vaccinated, then if hypothetically 79% of the hospitalized people were vaccinated, it would mean the vaccine had absolutely 0% effectiveness. The fact that only 60% of the hospitalized are vaccinated means the vaccine is more effective than nothing (and the data on death is even better), but as time goes on it becomes clearer the vaccines are not the silver bullet many of us thought they would be.
  - jayd16 5y ago
    > If 79% of people are vaccinated, then if hypothetically 79% of the hospitalized people were vaccinated, it would mean the vaccine had absolutely 0% effectiveness. Incorrect. The vaccinations are targeted at the most vulnerable not distributed uniformly so this is not exactly right.
    - edanm 5y ago
      Just to be clear, I agree with your point that there is a difference in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated population (e.g. average age). But when you say "targeted" at the most vulnerable, I'm not sure how true that is. There's a pretty big push to get everyone vaccinated, including populations that have been reluctant to get vaccinated until now.
jayd16 5y ago
You're misrepresenting the situation. As the article says, only 58% of the population is vaccinated. Only 78.8% of the eligible population is vaccinated.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
belltaco 5y ago
The vaccinated folks are mostly old people and people with comorbidities, and the unvaccinated are mostly young and healthy people, so you're not comparing like for like.

tracyhenry 5y ago

I will get downvoted... but really, 60% of the hospitalizations come from vaccinated population, does that really count as "incredibly effective"? Is that really what people were hoping for when Pfizer & Moderna announced 94%+ effectiveness?

singhrac 5y ago
In addition to the clear example of Simpson’s paradox presented here: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-... , I offer you the following intuition: if only 4 people in Israel were unvaccinated and 2 were in the hospital with 2 vaccinated patients, would you consider the vaccine effective? It’s important to look at the right numbers.
- charbonneau 5y ago
  The Simpson's paradox seems to refer to something else: https://twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1428014414666420230 https://twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1428014414666420230
- tracyhenry 5y ago
  I didn't say that the vaccine isn't effective. I'm saying this is nowhere near "incredibly effective". The post you cited is helpful. However, it is confusing the definition of efficacy. There were debates on what the efficacy meant when Pfizer and Moderna reported their high numbers. But there was *NO* definition saying that 94% efficacy means 94% of vaccinated people won't get SERIOUSLY sick. Most commonly, it meant either (1) 94% people will have lower chance of getting COVID (i.e. getting tested positive)[1], or (2) 94% people will have a lower chance of getting sick [2]. Now the post you cited essentially says 94% people won't get SERIOUSLY sick. This just proves that neither (1) or (2) above is true. [1] https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-explained.html https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-explai... [2] https://time.com/5945177/covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness/ https://time.com/5945177/covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness/

chaostheory 5y ago

I'm pro-vaccination, but there's no sugar coating the fact that %60 of hospitalizations are of previously vaccinated people. I don't know much about mRNA vaccines, but do mRNA vaccines induce sterilizing immunity?

ssss11 5y ago
Not sure what “sterilising immunity” is but the vaccines appear to reduce likelihood you will get Covid (not completely make you immune). If you then get it you are much less likely to end up in ICU or die, you may go to hospital though.
est31 5y ago
It's a statistical effect called Simpson's Paradox. The 60% is nothing to be worried about. https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-... https://twitter.com/jsm2334/status/1427465566210695178 https://twitter.com/jsm2334/status/1427465566210695178
- charbonneau 5y ago
  The Simpson's Paradox seems to refer to something else: https://twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1428014414666420230 https://twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1428014414666420230
  - est31 5y ago
    If you go by what Simpson wrote, then maybe it is a different paradox. If you go by what most people are being taught the Simpson's paradox is, then no. Ultimately it's besides the point. The conflict is resolved by better statistics.
vitaflo 5y ago
If 100% of people were immunized then 100% of hospitalizations would be vaccinated people. This doesn’t mean vaccines aren’t effective.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

linuxhansl 5y ago

More data here: https://twitter.com/jsm2334/status/1427465003007942659?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/jsm2334/status/1427465003007942659?ref_s...

hammock 5y ago

Natural immunity is also incredibly effective. How many of the unvaccinated are recovered patients with natural immunity?

lucb1e 5y ago
That's news to me, I seem to remember news stories from last year that people were being infected multiple times and the immunity from having endured COVID-19 was not actually that good. Quickly trying to look this up with 'covid-19 reinfection' as query (trying to avoid confirmation bias in that search), the top hit on DDG is the USA CDC which writes: > Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated. --https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm Reinfection occurs much more frequently if you don't get vaccinated, if I am reading this right. Not sure I'd call "natural" immunity "also" or "incredibly" effective.