4 ms·

Pretty sure you numbers are not factoring in children under the age they legally allowed to get the vaccine, because those numbers are way high if you exclude

by syshum 5y ago

Pretty sure you numbers are not factoring in children under the age they legally allowed to get the vaccine, because those numbers are way high if you exclude the ineligible "All Persons" is not a valid statistic >As such, we know much more about how well vaccinations protect people than we do about how well the immune systems of those who have recovered from COVID will protect from reinfection We actually do not, given that the effects of the vaccine seems to diminish with time, we currently have no idea how much or for how long. We do not have long term data. This is why there is sooooo much confusion on if you need a booster and when, because the efficacy at 6mo, 1 year, 18mo etc is a big unknown right now

nobody9999 5y ago
>Pretty sure you numbers are not factoring in children under the age they legally allowed to get the vaccine, because those numbers are way high if you exclude the ineligible A fair point. There were approximately 45,000,000 children under the age of 12 in the US in 2019[0]. I'd guess that's probably still relatively accurate. Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus. >We actually do not, given that the effects of the vaccine seems to diminish with time, we currently have no idea how much or for how long. We do not have long term data. This is why there is sooooo much confusion on if you need a booster and when, because the efficacy at 6mo, 1 year, 18mo etc is a big unknown right now Another good point. I'd point out that while ongoing immunity is a big (and unanswered) question, bringing R0[1] down in high infection areas right now can significantly reduce the impact on our health care systems and economy. What the situation will look like in 12-18 months is important, but given the high transmissibility and case rates in some areas of the US, increasing the ability of folks to avoid serious health consequences right now is, arguably, even more so. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/457786/number-of-children-in-the-us-by-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/457786/number-of-childre... [1] https://www.mastersindatascience.org/resources/r0-infectious-diseases/ https://www.mastersindatascience.org/resources/r0-infectious...
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  > Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus. Your calculation is wrong. 120 million that are unvaccinated, out of which 40 million are immune from past contraction and another 45 million are ineligible, that leaves 35 million, less than the number of people who are immune from having contracted the virus. That of course also doesn't take into account other people who cannot take it, and the number of unconfirmed cases of immunity from having contracted the virus. I don't have any estimates for those numbers so I won't speculate on what they are besides saying that the number of unvaccinated Americans that can and need to be vaccinated is probably a lot less than 35 million.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >Your calculation is wrong. 120 million that are unvaccinated, out of which 40 million are immune from past contraction and another 45 million are ineligible, that leaves 35 million, less than the number of people who are immune from having contracted the virus. Note that I did not mention immunity. I mentioned vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Contracted/recovered from the virus != vaccinated. As to levels of immunity from previous infection, I made no statement whatsoever. Edit: clarified my initial statement vis a vis vaccination vs. immunity.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      Well you're talking about 45 million ineligible children and then not taking that number into account, I see no reason why you've talked about them then. > Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus. This is what I'm responding to. It is incorrect. 120-40-45=35. 35 is far and away from almost twice as much as 40.
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        >This is what I'm responding to. It is incorrect. 120-40-45=35. 35 is far and away from almost twice as much as 40. Actually, the calculation is 120 (total unvaccinated)-45 (children under 12)=75. Whether or not someone has contracted the virus or not is irrelevant to whether or not they have (or can) receive a vaccination. Whether or not those 40 million cases have some level of immunity is also irrelevant to whether or not they are vaccinated.

by syshum 5y ago

nobody9999 5y ago

>Pretty sure you numbers are not factoring in children under the age they legally allowed to get the vaccine, because those numbers are way high if you exclude the ineligible A fair point. There were approximately 45,000,000 children under the age of 12 in the US in 2019[0]. I'd guess that's probably still relatively accurate. Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus. >We actually do not, given that the effects of the vaccine seems to diminish with time, we currently have no idea how much or for how long. We do not have long term data. This is why there is sooooo much confusion on if you need a booster and when, because the efficacy at 6mo, 1 year, 18mo etc is a big unknown right now Another good point. I'd point out that while ongoing immunity is a big (and unanswered) question, bringing R0[1] down in high infection areas right now can significantly reduce the impact on our health care systems and economy. What the situation will look like in 12-18 months is important, but given the high transmissibility and case rates in some areas of the US, increasing the ability of folks to avoid serious health consequences right now is, arguably, even more so. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/457786/number-of-children-in-the-us-by-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/457786/number-of-childre... [1] https://www.mastersindatascience.org/resources/r0-infectious-diseases/ https://www.mastersindatascience.org/resources/r0-infectious...

betwixthewires 5y ago
> Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus. Your calculation is wrong. 120 million that are unvaccinated, out of which 40 million are immune from past contraction and another 45 million are ineligible, that leaves 35 million, less than the number of people who are immune from having contracted the virus. That of course also doesn't take into account other people who cannot take it, and the number of unconfirmed cases of immunity from having contracted the virus. I don't have any estimates for those numbers so I won't speculate on what they are besides saying that the number of unvaccinated Americans that can and need to be vaccinated is probably a lot less than 35 million.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >Your calculation is wrong. 120 million that are unvaccinated, out of which 40 million are immune from past contraction and another 45 million are ineligible, that leaves 35 million, less than the number of people who are immune from having contracted the virus. Note that I did not mention immunity. I mentioned vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Contracted/recovered from the virus != vaccinated. As to levels of immunity from previous infection, I made no statement whatsoever. Edit: clarified my initial statement vis a vis vaccination vs. immunity.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Well you're talking about 45 million ineligible children and then not taking that number into account, I see no reason why you've talked about them then. > Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus. This is what I'm responding to. It is incorrect. 120-40-45=35. 35 is far and away from almost twice as much as 40.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >This is what I'm responding to. It is incorrect. 120-40-45=35. 35 is far and away from almost twice as much as 40. Actually, the calculation is 120 (total unvaccinated)-45 (children under 12)=75. Whether or not someone has contracted the virus or not is irrelevant to whether or not they have (or can) receive a vaccination. Whether or not those 40 million cases have some level of immunity is also irrelevant to whether or not they are vaccinated.