4 ms·

What's your point? "Infections happen in only a small proportion of people who are fully vaccinated, even with the Delta variant" does suggest the vaccine is ef

What's your point? "Infections happen in only a small proportion of people who are fully vaccinated, even with the Delta variant" does suggest the vaccine is effective. You can still spread the virus, nobody's pretending it's 100% effective, but that doesn't make it ineffective

Uberphallus 5y ago
It's an antivaxxer classic, for them effective means 100% effective under all conditions, otherwise it's ineffective. It's called fallacy of composition[0] when they cherry pick the cases where it's less effective to infer it's not effective as a whole, and fallacy of division[1] when trying to do reductio ad absurdum by claiming that, if it's effective as a whole, it should also be so under all underlying metrics. Two sides of the same nonsense coin. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
- fallingknife 5y ago
  A reasonable definition of effectiveness would be that it stops the virus from spreading through a population. Even in the case of Israel with the highest vaccination rate in the world, it has failed this test. I personally would say that it is effective because it has prevented a lot of deaths. But a reasonable person could disagree.
  - Uberphallus 5y ago
    > it stops the virus from spreading "It doesn't fully stop spread, so it doesn't work as a whole". Thanks for giving another example for my comment.
    - fallingknife 5y ago
      Most vaccines do fully stop the spread, even for measles, which is one of the most transmissible viruses known. So it's a reasonable standard.
      - Uberphallus 5y ago
        > Most vaccines do fully stop the spread, even for measles, No, they don't. [0][1] From [1] > Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles; one dose is about 93% effective. Obviously those 3% and 7% do spread, even though the symptoms are milder. For the 97 and 93% ones there's indeed very limited (if any) shedding [3]. Now that's holding different bars, because asymptomatic measles infections are less contagious by themselves, regardless of vaccination status, unlike COVID-19 which is still relatively contagious while asymptomatic. So you're attributing a positive point of measles infections as a fault of the COVID-19 vaccines, which is, as you might see, a pretty misinformed take. Also, sterilizing immunity as you seem to understand doesn't really exist, in case that's the misconception you have [2]. In the end it's all about viral load, route of exposure, and level and type of immunity. A mucosal vaccine would behave more in the way your expecting intramuscular ones to work[4]. [0] https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/67/9/1315/5034094?login=true https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/67/9/1315/5034094?login... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/sterilizing-immunity-myth-covid-19-vaccines/620023/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz... [3] https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S165/821757 https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S165/8... [4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00583-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00583-2
- josh_today 5y ago
  I hate politicizing this to my side vs their side The fact is that the efficiency of the vaccine is being understood as we go. We started with the initial dose and are now considering second and third boosters because the efficiency diminished faster than expected That’s beside the point of the WaPo article. YouTube is making the decision to remove any content that goes against vaccines, based in truth or not.
  - Uberphallus 5y ago
    We started with 2 doses. Nobody talked about second or third boosters, because only a first booster has been recommended for those most at risk. Is this the kind of information you're worried will be deleted, that is, gross misunderstandings of reality in the best case, outright lies to generate engagement in the worst?
nanis 5y ago
Imagine, for a moment, a world in which 1 out of 15,000 fully vaccinated against measles are getting hospitalized from measles and an additional 1 out of 50,000 fully vaccinated against measles are dying from measles. And these numbers are increasing. That is the case for the COVID19 vaccines. Visualization here[1]. The domain might be banned, but the code, snapshots, and the chart output here[2]. [1]: https://www.covid2020.icu/vaccine-breakthrough/ https://www.covid2020.icu/vaccine-breakthrough/ [2]: https://github.com/nanis/covid19-breakthrough https://github.com/nanis/covid19-breakthrough
- Uberphallus 5y ago
  The rates are increasing because the cases/deaths are increasing as of the latest reported date you have. Now it's starting to decrease so your graph will show a decrease once you update it with the latest week data. At least compare with a previous wave to see if there's a change according to vaccination rates (spoiler: there is), because as it is it's a worthless, albeit pretty, representation of data.
  - nanis 5y ago
    It is hard to make the comparisons I would like to make mostly because of the piss poor way the data are disseminated (or not disseminated). For example, the CDC overwrites the previous information with every week's update. That is why the repo exists. To preserve any time series information in one place with a verifiable way to extract it out of ever-changing HTML pages and put it in a table. In theory, the CDC ought to be able to put the relevant information in a table. At a minimum, we'd need `date`, `locality`, age distributions of fully, partially, and never vaccinated populations, age distribution of people who are hospitalized due to COVID19, and age distribution of people who died from COVID19. Ideally, we'd have a data set consisting of one row per hospitalization/death with relevant dimensions such as age, sex, first shot date, second shot date, type of vaccine, locality, other conditions etc. But, we do not. Because the bureaucracy has not deemed it appropriate to collect or share that information. Instead, we need to rely on free form HTML pages where the provenance of the data are not clear. What I have done is made visible one bit of information that would otherwise not be available: The normalized rate of fully vaccinated people being hospitalized or dying from the disease against which they are fully vaccinated has been steadily increasing over time. The main reason is that the vaccines are not as effective as the 95% number that has been flouted time and again. Of course, it takes time for a person to be exposed, diagnosed, hospitalized, and maybe die, so the revelation has been happening over time instead of instantaneously. > because as it is it's a worthless, albeit pretty, representation of data. If I hadn't taken the snapshots and extracted the information from those pages, there would be no time series of breakthrough hospitalization and death rates anywhere. It seems to me it is worth something to save that information. Plus, Biden told us the rate of hospitalization from COVID19 among the fully vaccinated was 1/160,000. The real number is 10 times that[1]. Isn't it worth something to know this? [1]: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-4NQBFWEAMzATQ?format=png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-4NQBFWEAMzATQ?format=png
notdang 5y ago
Can the same thing what you've written be said on youtube without being banned?

Uberphallus 5y ago

It's an antivaxxer classic, for them effective means 100% effective under all conditions, otherwise it's ineffective. It's called fallacy of composition[0] when they cherry pick the cases where it's less effective to infer it's not effective as a whole, and fallacy of division[1] when trying to do reductio ad absurdum by claiming that, if it's effective as a whole, it should also be so under all underlying metrics. Two sides of the same nonsense coin. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

fallingknife 5y ago
A reasonable definition of effectiveness would be that it stops the virus from spreading through a population. Even in the case of Israel with the highest vaccination rate in the world, it has failed this test. I personally would say that it is effective because it has prevented a lot of deaths. But a reasonable person could disagree.
- Uberphallus 5y ago
  > it stops the virus from spreading "It doesn't fully stop spread, so it doesn't work as a whole". Thanks for giving another example for my comment.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    Most vaccines do fully stop the spread, even for measles, which is one of the most transmissible viruses known. So it's a reasonable standard.
    - Uberphallus 5y ago
      > Most vaccines do fully stop the spread, even for measles, No, they don't. [0][1] From [1] > Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles; one dose is about 93% effective. Obviously those 3% and 7% do spread, even though the symptoms are milder. For the 97 and 93% ones there's indeed very limited (if any) shedding [3]. Now that's holding different bars, because asymptomatic measles infections are less contagious by themselves, regardless of vaccination status, unlike COVID-19 which is still relatively contagious while asymptomatic. So you're attributing a positive point of measles infections as a fault of the COVID-19 vaccines, which is, as you might see, a pretty misinformed take. Also, sterilizing immunity as you seem to understand doesn't really exist, in case that's the misconception you have [2]. In the end it's all about viral load, route of exposure, and level and type of immunity. A mucosal vaccine would behave more in the way your expecting intramuscular ones to work[4]. [0] https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/67/9/1315/5034094?login=true https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/67/9/1315/5034094?login... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/sterilizing-immunity-myth-covid-19-vaccines/620023/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz... [3] https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S165/821757 https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S165/8... [4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00583-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00583-2
josh_today 5y ago
I hate politicizing this to my side vs their side The fact is that the efficiency of the vaccine is being understood as we go. We started with the initial dose and are now considering second and third boosters because the efficiency diminished faster than expected That’s beside the point of the WaPo article. YouTube is making the decision to remove any content that goes against vaccines, based in truth or not.
- Uberphallus 5y ago
  We started with 2 doses. Nobody talked about second or third boosters, because only a first booster has been recommended for those most at risk. Is this the kind of information you're worried will be deleted, that is, gross misunderstandings of reality in the best case, outright lies to generate engagement in the worst?

nanis 5y ago

Imagine, for a moment, a world in which 1 out of 15,000 fully vaccinated against measles are getting hospitalized from measles and an additional 1 out of 50,000 fully vaccinated against measles are dying from measles. And these numbers are increasing. That is the case for the COVID19 vaccines. Visualization here[1]. The domain might be banned, but the code, snapshots, and the chart output here[2]. [1]: https://www.covid2020.icu/vaccine-breakthrough/ https://www.covid2020.icu/vaccine-breakthrough/ [2]: https://github.com/nanis/covid19-breakthrough https://github.com/nanis/covid19-breakthrough

Uberphallus 5y ago
The rates are increasing because the cases/deaths are increasing as of the latest reported date you have. Now it's starting to decrease so your graph will show a decrease once you update it with the latest week data. At least compare with a previous wave to see if there's a change according to vaccination rates (spoiler: there is), because as it is it's a worthless, albeit pretty, representation of data.
- nanis 5y ago
  It is hard to make the comparisons I would like to make mostly because of the piss poor way the data are disseminated (or not disseminated). For example, the CDC overwrites the previous information with every week's update. That is why the repo exists. To preserve any time series information in one place with a verifiable way to extract it out of ever-changing HTML pages and put it in a table. In theory, the CDC ought to be able to put the relevant information in a table. At a minimum, we'd need `date`, `locality`, age distributions of fully, partially, and never vaccinated populations, age distribution of people who are hospitalized due to COVID19, and age distribution of people who died from COVID19. Ideally, we'd have a data set consisting of one row per hospitalization/death with relevant dimensions such as age, sex, first shot date, second shot date, type of vaccine, locality, other conditions etc. But, we do not. Because the bureaucracy has not deemed it appropriate to collect or share that information. Instead, we need to rely on free form HTML pages where the provenance of the data are not clear. What I have done is made visible one bit of information that would otherwise not be available: The normalized rate of fully vaccinated people being hospitalized or dying from the disease against which they are fully vaccinated has been steadily increasing over time. The main reason is that the vaccines are not as effective as the 95% number that has been flouted time and again. Of course, it takes time for a person to be exposed, diagnosed, hospitalized, and maybe die, so the revelation has been happening over time instead of instantaneously. > because as it is it's a worthless, albeit pretty, representation of data. If I hadn't taken the snapshots and extracted the information from those pages, there would be no time series of breakthrough hospitalization and death rates anywhere. It seems to me it is worth something to save that information. Plus, Biden told us the rate of hospitalization from COVID19 among the fully vaccinated was 1/160,000. The real number is 10 times that[1]. Isn't it worth something to know this? [1]: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-4NQBFWEAMzATQ?format=png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-4NQBFWEAMzATQ?format=png

notdang 5y ago

Can the same thing what you've written be said on youtube without being banned?