4 ms·

The term ”survivor bias” is usually used metaphorically, but in this case it applies literally. Putting in some caveats about the risks associated with infecti

The term ”survivor bias” is usually used metaphorically, but in this case it applies literally. Putting in some caveats about the risks associated with infection is not enough. This is a garbage analysis that should never have been accepted for publication.

peteradio 5y ago
I don't see survivor bias here at all. This is simply a study that caters to a rather significant population who justifiably want to know what they stand to gain from this vaccine. What this study has done is identified a sub population who stand to gain such minuscule benefit from vaccination that it would be unethical to include them in a study (most studies DO exclude previously infected individuals, huh wonder why?) Furthermore it is unscientific discrimination to penalize people when they could prove prior infection and/or immunity.
- amluto 5y ago
  The study appears to be reporting at least a further 50% reduction in risk for previously infected people who get a vaccine. One might debate whether the probabilities involved are so low as to be irrelevant, but the study absolutely supports the existence of a benefit.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Fair point. I hold my ground on the discrimination point.
- siilats 5y ago
  Nobody died from vaccine but all the weak ones died from first infection so the surviving infected have survivorship bias.
  - SlowRobotAhead 5y ago
    > Nobody died from vaccine That’s not strictly true. There have been deaths, but this can be attributed to components in the vaccines that these unlucky people may have gotten at any time. There have been rare and unusual vaccine caused deaths.
    - siilats 5y ago
      In this study nobody died from vaccine. But the big thing thats not adjusted for is once you got Covid you will wear mask and won't go to restaurant, this is not adjusted for in this study.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Do you honestly think its wrong or uncommon to study a group of people who have experienced a disease? Perhaps in an effort to make them informed about their particular risks?
- SamBam 5y ago
  You haven't read the replied upthread where people use research like this to suggest "Corona parties" (like chickenpox parties) and how many people think it's safer to catch the virus than get the vaccine? This article will absolutely not just be used by already-infected people trying to make a decision.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    You are right, but are you suggesting this should be censored? This is important information that is very relevant to a sizable population.
    - SamBam 5y ago
      No, but it should make clear that this study is absolutely not recommending getting infected over getting vaccinated.
      - peteradio 5y ago
        Its a problem for the main narrative but that is because the main narrative is brittle and stupid. I don't see why scientific news ought to be forced to cater to a particular political narrative. Let the main narrative fold this in along with whatever caveats they wish, leave the science publications out of it.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  peterbonney's right for exactly the reasons that the public trying to reason its way through interpreting studies like this unaided is dangerous to public health. This is an observational study. It's not possible for it to control for (among other things) the possibility that those who were infected and survived already possessed enhanced natural immunity due to some other cause. All we know is that people who get COVID-19 and don't die from it are less likely to become symptomatic with the delta variant than people who are inoculated, not whether or not they were always less likely to become symptomatic with the delta variant. People who interpret this study to mean "I don't need the vaccine" are really rolling the dice on the possibility that there's an X-factor here to COVID-19 survival... And they don't have it.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Apparently a high percentage of X-factor was present in this study. Do you see something funny in the demographics of the recovered?
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      I see they recovered. You're correct... One interpretation could be that a high percentage of X-factor was present in this study's recovered group. But since we don't know what the X-factor is, an unvaccinated person is rolling dice by assuming they have it. Nothing about this study guarantees an unvaccinated individual survives a brush with COVID-19; it suggests they're likely to survive a second brush with it (and likelier still if they get vaccinated).
      - peteradio 5y ago
        I see what you are saying. The study is not relevant for unvaccinated and uninfected people.
tootie 5y ago
I'm fully vaccinated as is my whole family but you're the one showing bias here. The data is the data. Obviously the data set is only recovered patients. That has no bearing on the analysis. It's not a recommendation to go get infected or anything ridiculous like that. It's not a recommendation of anything. It's just data.
- peterbonney 5y ago
  It’s math for the sake of math with no actual scientific value. Here, let me help: “Car crash survivors show greater seat belt compliance than people who watch a seat belt PSA.” Useless analysis.
  - tootie 5y ago
    That's the wrong analogy. Seat belts only work while you're wearing them. They don't prevent crashes. Imagine if the study found the opposite conclusion. That vaccines produced a stronger immune response than a live infection. We'd have a whole different take if that were the result so it's extremely valuable to have an answer.
    - peterbonney 5y ago
      You’re missing my point. We know nothing about the sample that was excluded (the people who died). Were the survivors already more prone to wearing seat belts, or did the accident change their behavior? In the Covid case, is the sample more weighted towards people who are more naturally prone to have a robust immune response (in contrast to the missing sample, I.e. everyone who died), or is the disease alone responsible for the immune response? It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison, so no valid conclusions can be drawn.
      - tootie 5y ago
        That's still irrelevant. They asked a specific question and got an answer. That answer adds to our knowledge. That's it. We already have data telling us how many people who contract covid will have life-threatening symptoms without treatment.

peteradio 5y ago

I don't see survivor bias here at all. This is simply a study that caters to a rather significant population who justifiably want to know what they stand to gain from this vaccine. What this study has done is identified a sub population who stand to gain such minuscule benefit from vaccination that it would be unethical to include them in a study (most studies DO exclude previously infected individuals, huh wonder why?) Furthermore it is unscientific discrimination to penalize people when they could prove prior infection and/or immunity.

amluto 5y ago
The study appears to be reporting at least a further 50% reduction in risk for previously infected people who get a vaccine. One might debate whether the probabilities involved are so low as to be irrelevant, but the study absolutely supports the existence of a benefit.
- peteradio 5y ago
  Fair point. I hold my ground on the discrimination point.
siilats 5y ago
Nobody died from vaccine but all the weak ones died from first infection so the surviving infected have survivorship bias.
- SlowRobotAhead 5y ago
  > Nobody died from vaccine That’s not strictly true. There have been deaths, but this can be attributed to components in the vaccines that these unlucky people may have gotten at any time. There have been rare and unusual vaccine caused deaths.
  - siilats 5y ago
    In this study nobody died from vaccine. But the big thing thats not adjusted for is once you got Covid you will wear mask and won't go to restaurant, this is not adjusted for in this study.
- peteradio 5y ago
  Do you honestly think its wrong or uncommon to study a group of people who have experienced a disease? Perhaps in an effort to make them informed about their particular risks?
SamBam 5y ago
You haven't read the replied upthread where people use research like this to suggest "Corona parties" (like chickenpox parties) and how many people think it's safer to catch the virus than get the vaccine? This article will absolutely not just be used by already-infected people trying to make a decision.
- peteradio 5y ago
  You are right, but are you suggesting this should be censored? This is important information that is very relevant to a sizable population.
  - SamBam 5y ago
    No, but it should make clear that this study is absolutely not recommending getting infected over getting vaccinated.
    - peteradio 5y ago
      Its a problem for the main narrative but that is because the main narrative is brittle and stupid. I don't see why scientific news ought to be forced to cater to a particular political narrative. Let the main narrative fold this in along with whatever caveats they wish, leave the science publications out of it.
shadowgovt 5y ago
peterbonney's right for exactly the reasons that the public trying to reason its way through interpreting studies like this unaided is dangerous to public health. This is an observational study. It's not possible for it to control for (among other things) the possibility that those who were infected and survived already possessed enhanced natural immunity due to some other cause. All we know is that people who get COVID-19 and don't die from it are less likely to become symptomatic with the delta variant than people who are inoculated, not whether or not they were always less likely to become symptomatic with the delta variant. People who interpret this study to mean "I don't need the vaccine" are really rolling the dice on the possibility that there's an X-factor here to COVID-19 survival... And they don't have it.
- peteradio 5y ago
  Apparently a high percentage of X-factor was present in this study. Do you see something funny in the demographics of the recovered?
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    I see they recovered. You're correct... One interpretation could be that a high percentage of X-factor was present in this study's recovered group. But since we don't know what the X-factor is, an unvaccinated person is rolling dice by assuming they have it. Nothing about this study guarantees an unvaccinated individual survives a brush with COVID-19; it suggests they're likely to survive a second brush with it (and likelier still if they get vaccinated).
    - peteradio 5y ago
      I see what you are saying. The study is not relevant for unvaccinated and uninfected people.

tootie 5y ago

I'm fully vaccinated as is my whole family but you're the one showing bias here. The data is the data. Obviously the data set is only recovered patients. That has no bearing on the analysis. It's not a recommendation to go get infected or anything ridiculous like that. It's not a recommendation of anything. It's just data.

peterbonney 5y ago
It’s math for the sake of math with no actual scientific value. Here, let me help: “Car crash survivors show greater seat belt compliance than people who watch a seat belt PSA.” Useless analysis.
- tootie 5y ago
  That's the wrong analogy. Seat belts only work while you're wearing them. They don't prevent crashes. Imagine if the study found the opposite conclusion. That vaccines produced a stronger immune response than a live infection. We'd have a whole different take if that were the result so it's extremely valuable to have an answer.
  - peterbonney 5y ago
    You’re missing my point. We know nothing about the sample that was excluded (the people who died). Were the survivors already more prone to wearing seat belts, or did the accident change their behavior? In the Covid case, is the sample more weighted towards people who are more naturally prone to have a robust immune response (in contrast to the missing sample, I.e. everyone who died), or is the disease alone responsible for the immune response? It’s not an apples-to-apples comparison, so no valid conclusions can be drawn.
    - tootie 5y ago
      That's still irrelevant. They asked a specific question and got an answer. That answer adds to our knowledge. That's it. We already have data telling us how many people who contract covid will have life-threatening symptoms without treatment.