3 ms·

You are confusing the outcomes of 'serious illness' - which you presented numbers for, and 'death'. Yes you are correct to say if something is effective 999,99

You are confusing the outcomes of 'serious illness' - which you presented numbers for, and 'death'. Yes you are correct to say if something is effective 999,999 in a million, it is 0% effective in the 1 person. As you specifically mention deaths, but present no information regarding it here is the UK data: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand2july2021 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde... All cohorts: 51,281 total covid deaths in the 6 months Jan - July 2021. 640 of which had 2 doses of a vaccine.

incrudible 5y ago
You picked a source that not age-stratified and also looks at a timeframe when many were not vaccinated in the first place. I can give you a source for deaths in the past few weeks in Israel, but only stratified between over/under 60: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/what-do-new-israeli-data-say-about-effect-of-vaccines-boosters-vs-death-critical-severe-disease https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/what-do-new-israeli-d... The picture is similar: Efficacy of around 70% (two doses) and 95% (fresh booster) against death. This is far from "one in a million". If you age-stratified this data further, you would likely get better efficacy though.
- shapefrog 5y ago
  Assume for the purpose every single one of the ~600 is old. Same outcome. Indeed leaving them in, according to your own source makes vaccines look worse than they are! Given how the large sample size etc is I am more than comfortable taking the UK unstratified data and clncluding the vaccines are effective. > Because of age confounding, it is crucial to stratify by age groups, and further to remove children from the <60yr group; otherwise Simpson's paradox makes vaccines look like they are not effective in protecting against COVID-19 deaths at all.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    No matter how you twist and turn it, the vaccines are significantly less effective in the people who need it the most, to the point where a significant amount of deaths, in both absolue and relative terms, occur in the fully vaccinated. That means better options for treatment are still needed. That is the point I am making, nothing else.
    - shapefrog 5y ago
      You are litterally making shit up by saying a significant amount of deaths, in both absolue and relative terms, occur in the fully vaccinated Best of luck to you on your propaganda campaign.
      - incrudible 5y ago
        > You are litterally making shit up by saying a significant amount of deaths, in both absolue and relative terms, occur in the fully vaccinated Let's go back to current UK data: During the delta wave, 1,613 deaths have been fully vaccinated. That's 70% of deaths, despite high vaccine efficacy. If that's not significant, then the other 722 unvaccinated deaths aren't significant either. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... (Page 20) > Best of luck to you on your propaganda campaign. Same to you.

incrudible 5y ago

You picked a source that not age-stratified and also looks at a timeframe when many were not vaccinated in the first place. I can give you a source for deaths in the past few weeks in Israel, but only stratified between over/under 60: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/what-do-new-israeli-data-say-about-effect-of-vaccines-boosters-vs-death-critical-severe-disease https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/what-do-new-israeli-d... The picture is similar: Efficacy of around 70% (two doses) and 95% (fresh booster) against death. This is far from "one in a million". If you age-stratified this data further, you would likely get better efficacy though.

shapefrog 5y ago
Assume for the purpose every single one of the ~600 is old. Same outcome. Indeed leaving them in, according to your own source makes vaccines look worse than they are! Given how the large sample size etc is I am more than comfortable taking the UK unstratified data and clncluding the vaccines are effective. > Because of age confounding, it is crucial to stratify by age groups, and further to remove children from the <60yr group; otherwise Simpson's paradox makes vaccines look like they are not effective in protecting against COVID-19 deaths at all.
- incrudible 5y ago
  No matter how you twist and turn it, the vaccines are significantly less effective in the people who need it the most, to the point where a significant amount of deaths, in both absolue and relative terms, occur in the fully vaccinated. That means better options for treatment are still needed. That is the point I am making, nothing else.
  - shapefrog 5y ago
    You are litterally making shit up by saying a significant amount of deaths, in both absolue and relative terms, occur in the fully vaccinated Best of luck to you on your propaganda campaign.
    - incrudible 5y ago
      > You are litterally making shit up by saying a significant amount of deaths, in both absolue and relative terms, occur in the fully vaccinated Let's go back to current UK data: During the delta wave, 1,613 deaths have been fully vaccinated. That's 70% of deaths, despite high vaccine efficacy. If that's not significant, then the other 722 unvaccinated deaths aren't significant either. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... (Page 20) > Best of luck to you on your propaganda campaign. Same to you.