4 ms·

This is, of course, bullshit. Multiple tricks are used to further the narrative in this. First: the CDC decided NOT to track breakthrough cases. For obvious re

by ipspam 5y ago

This is, of course, bullshit. Multiple tricks are used to further the narrative in this. First: the CDC decided NOT to track breakthrough cases. For obvious reasons. That leaves us with less than ideal data. In this case, the data comes from three places: Utah; Virginia; and King County. Second: These are the DAILY odds. Even assuming everything else is correct and stays the same, this is still a 1 in 7 chance over the course of 2 years. Third: half of breakthrough cases are probably missed. Maybe more. Third: the vaccine is near its highest efficacy now, and has only started to drop. It's all down hill from here. Fourth: vaccine testing bias is not discussed. I'll do my own math for the vaccinated: Only half the cases are caught with a PCR test. = 1 in 7 chance over 1 years. Let's do two years. 1 in 3.5 chance. Now throw in some vaccine durability issues over 2 years. 1 in 2.5 chance??? Then a new variant. Ah fuck it, everyone gets Covid.

CobaltFire 5y ago
Will everyone get COVID? Likely, yes. Will the vaccine limit the damage to the population as a WHOLE? Evidence says yes. Your math is rather suspect; 1 in 5000 daily chance (giving you the benefit of the doubt since I can't read the paywalled article) means that if someone is at risk for a breakthrough infection for 10 days (that's a WAG, but seems plausible given how long it takes to clear the virus) that's a 1 in 500 chance, not your 1 in 7. Does that chance increase as your immune system "forgets" the virus? Yup, that's how our immune system works. So aside from your very... loose math, I'm not sure what your point is? Take that away and there's nothing to your comment.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  I know anecdotally a few of my friends have been vaccinated, got sick with symptoms, and wouldn’t get a COVID test because it couldn’t be COVID, so there is going to be some self selection bias happening in the number of cases that test positive. There are other biases at play as well, for example many businesses are forcing unvaccinated employees to take tests, but the vaccinated are exempt from the tests. So someone could be an asymptomatic carrier and never reflect in the published statistics that NYT is drawing conclusions on. And even then, the 1:5000 odds don’t sound particularly reassuring.
- lurquer 5y ago
  > Your math is rather suspect; 1 in 5000 daily chance [. . .] for 10 days [. . .] that's a 1 in 500 The poster was correct. A 1/5000 daily chance is about 1/7 chance for a two year period. Your math, on the other hand, is wrong. If it didn’t seem wrong to you on an intuitive level (that is, if you didn’t know a binomial distribution would be necessary) you are at great risk for being easily misled.
  - CobaltFire 5y ago
    Apologies; I wasn't able to read the article and it seems I didn't interpret his statement correctly. My comment is left for posterity, and because I don't like editing after other's have replied.
- qolop 5y ago
  > Your math is rather suspect; 1 in 5000 daily chance means that if someone is at risk for a breakthrough infection for 10 days that's a 1 in 500 chance, not your 1 in 7. I couldn't understand your comment or your math. The point OP is trying to convey is that 1/5000 is not a reassuring number even though the title makes it sound like one. That is, the title is deliberately misleading. (And you are a prime example of someone being mislead) That's because a 1/5000 daily chance implies a 1/7 chance over the course of 2 years which is actually pretty effing huge.
  - Gibbon1 5y ago
    The other thing is that 1/5000 chance isn't fixed. It depends on the amount of virus circulating in the reservoir of unvaccinated dummies. The prudent thing to do is just wait for the virus to infect those guys and burn itself out.
  - CobaltFire 5y ago
    It was because I interpreted his numbers one way, and it was incorrect, due to not being able to access the article. Shouldn't be doing that. My comment is left because other's already replied, but I was incorrect.

by ipspam 5y ago

CobaltFire 5y ago

Will everyone get COVID? Likely, yes. Will the vaccine limit the damage to the population as a WHOLE? Evidence says yes. Your math is rather suspect; 1 in 5000 daily chance (giving you the benefit of the doubt since I can't read the paywalled article) means that if someone is at risk for a breakthrough infection for 10 days (that's a WAG, but seems plausible given how long it takes to clear the virus) that's a 1 in 500 chance, not your 1 in 7. Does that chance increase as your immune system "forgets" the virus? Yup, that's how our immune system works. So aside from your very... loose math, I'm not sure what your point is? Take that away and there's nothing to your comment.

oceanplexian 5y ago
I know anecdotally a few of my friends have been vaccinated, got sick with symptoms, and wouldn’t get a COVID test because it couldn’t be COVID, so there is going to be some self selection bias happening in the number of cases that test positive. There are other biases at play as well, for example many businesses are forcing unvaccinated employees to take tests, but the vaccinated are exempt from the tests. So someone could be an asymptomatic carrier and never reflect in the published statistics that NYT is drawing conclusions on. And even then, the 1:5000 odds don’t sound particularly reassuring.
lurquer 5y ago
> Your math is rather suspect; 1 in 5000 daily chance [. . .] for 10 days [. . .] that's a 1 in 500 The poster was correct. A 1/5000 daily chance is about 1/7 chance for a two year period. Your math, on the other hand, is wrong. If it didn’t seem wrong to you on an intuitive level (that is, if you didn’t know a binomial distribution would be necessary) you are at great risk for being easily misled.
- CobaltFire 5y ago
  Apologies; I wasn't able to read the article and it seems I didn't interpret his statement correctly. My comment is left for posterity, and because I don't like editing after other's have replied.
qolop 5y ago
> Your math is rather suspect; 1 in 5000 daily chance means that if someone is at risk for a breakthrough infection for 10 days that's a 1 in 500 chance, not your 1 in 7. I couldn't understand your comment or your math. The point OP is trying to convey is that 1/5000 is not a reassuring number even though the title makes it sound like one. That is, the title is deliberately misleading. (And you are a prime example of someone being mislead) That's because a 1/5000 daily chance implies a 1/7 chance over the course of 2 years which is actually pretty effing huge.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  The other thing is that 1/5000 chance isn't fixed. It depends on the amount of virus circulating in the reservoir of unvaccinated dummies. The prudent thing to do is just wait for the virus to infect those guys and burn itself out.
- CobaltFire 5y ago
  It was because I interpreted his numbers one way, and it was incorrect, due to not being able to access the article. Shouldn't be doing that. My comment is left because other's already replied, but I was incorrect.