3 ms·

"Conditional on infection" - thanks for demonstrating the error. https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine-statistics https://drrollergator.

by gfodor 5y ago

"Conditional on infection" - thanks for demonstrating the error. https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine-statistics https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine...

ceejayoz 5y ago
That's a quote from your comment. You skimmed that article, didn't you? > The death rate if infected was always going to be higher in the vaccinated groups if most of the vaccinated were those likely to die in the first place. and in the comments, from the author, further explanation: > BUT. When you vaccinate everyone, you wind up reducing infections in the people who were never going to die. The young. That means the IFR in the whole population of vaccinated people is higher. The author is demonstrating issues with looking at IFR as a metric. The fact that a country (the US) with 65% vaccinated has 97% of severe cases in the unvaccinated speaks pretty solidly to efficacy at controlling severe disease.
- gfodor 5y ago
  It's kind of interesting you're accusing me of skimming the article, when based on the timestamps of these posts I can prove you literally skimmed the article. One of the main points of the article is that the early Pfizer data is not consistent with the hypothesis that the vaccine provides additional protection after a person has been successfully infected. Do you actually understand the argument? If you can refute this, I welcome it. I am not adopting the position of the article. I am frustrated that every time it is surfaced I get the same garbage responses and vitriol, because the proper response to the theory, if true, is to be more conservative in how we think about the protection of the vaccine and stop telling people it turns COVID into a cold.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    I've seen the article before; you'll find comments at the bottom pointing out that antivaxxers have been misreading it, and the author acknowledging that but opting not to revise.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      Well I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I actually helped review this article before it was published. Can you provide anything constructive here or are you going to keep responding the way you have so far?

by gfodor 5y ago

ceejayoz 5y ago

That's a quote from your comment. You skimmed that article, didn't you? > The death rate if infected was always going to be higher in the vaccinated groups if most of the vaccinated were those likely to die in the first place. and in the comments, from the author, further explanation: > BUT. When you vaccinate everyone, you wind up reducing infections in the people who were never going to die. The young. That means the IFR in the whole population of vaccinated people is higher. The author is demonstrating issues with looking at IFR as a metric. The fact that a country (the US) with 65% vaccinated has 97% of severe cases in the unvaccinated speaks pretty solidly to efficacy at controlling severe disease.

gfodor 5y ago
It's kind of interesting you're accusing me of skimming the article, when based on the timestamps of these posts I can prove you literally skimmed the article. One of the main points of the article is that the early Pfizer data is not consistent with the hypothesis that the vaccine provides additional protection after a person has been successfully infected. Do you actually understand the argument? If you can refute this, I welcome it. I am not adopting the position of the article. I am frustrated that every time it is surfaced I get the same garbage responses and vitriol, because the proper response to the theory, if true, is to be more conservative in how we think about the protection of the vaccine and stop telling people it turns COVID into a cold.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  I've seen the article before; you'll find comments at the bottom pointing out that antivaxxers have been misreading it, and the author acknowledging that but opting not to revise.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    Well I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I actually helped review this article before it was published. Can you provide anything constructive here or are you going to keep responding the way you have so far?