3 ms·

Yes, but take care while reading. This is about transmitting when infected. You must multiply by the chance of getting sick and then if tho other guy is vaccina

Yes, but take care while reading. This is about transmitting when infected. You must multiply by the chance of getting sick and then if tho other guy is vaccinated to by his chance of getting sick too. So like 0.04 * 0.58 * 0.04 = 0,09% chance of getting Corvid and transmitting it to a vaccinated person. Numbers might vary, depending on vaccine and study

mdp2021 5y ago
Yes absolutely (though it's not a chance «of getting sick» - just infected, it must be). Although, that "96% reduction" is unfortunately also hit by time. Also following studies of August (ex Mayo Clinic, "Comparison of two highly-effective mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 during periods of Alpha and Delta variant prevalence"), while the prevention of illness seems to remain above 90% (this is why you must distinguish illness and infection), the prevention of infection drops quite heavily in the case of Pfizer (76% for "January" to 42% for "July"). So, after over six months, one vaccinated with Pfizer, exposed to conditions for infection, is ~60% as likely to be infected vs one unvaccinated, and then well over 60% (it's 58% after three months) as likely to transmit said infection vs one unvaccinated (I am not sure about the distinction of vaccinated or unvaccinated as final recipient - at this stage the population is heavily mixed -, the scientific articles should be checked, that data came from the divulgative). So, in the same conditions, one vaccinated with Pfizer after six months is probably with one third of chances a potential vector (60-ish% comparative chance of infection and 60-ish% comparative chance of transmission) for the main variant of concern, when compared to an unvaccinated. Considering an old vaccination in the final recipient - if not partially included in the other data -, one fifth. (If I have read the numbers properly and have not fumbled on anything). The distance in magnitude between the 33%, maybe 20%, I am tentatively computing and that ~0.1%, again vouches for the need for clarity which was valid from day one. (How come we still do not seem to have one dashboard for collected tentative knowledge?) It would have been interesting to have had similar data (transmission rate over time) for Moderna, which had a limited decrease of effectiveness against infection over time.
- Cryptonic 5y ago
  Mh not sure about the numbers here, but he'll then let's get a third shot (and buy some more Pfizer stock)
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Numbers (of the decline in time for Pfizer): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v... (Still not peer reviewed.) > third shot ... Pfizer There's probably a little inclination in that data to encourage you to consider Moderna. Anyway, it's not just a matter of shots and stocks: there's also a matter of acting conscientiously (as opposed to claims of immunity and "licence to everything" about the vaccine), and appropriately informing to inform that acting. Edit: remember that months ago we had cases of "Welcome to our wedding, some of our guests resulted positive but do not worry: they are asymptomatic". Anecdotal exceptions? No.

mdp2021 5y ago

Yes absolutely (though it's not a chance «of getting sick» - just infected, it must be). Although, that "96% reduction" is unfortunately also hit by time. Also following studies of August (ex Mayo Clinic, "Comparison of two highly-effective mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 during periods of Alpha and Delta variant prevalence"), while the prevention of illness seems to remain above 90% (this is why you must distinguish illness and infection), the prevention of infection drops quite heavily in the case of Pfizer (76% for "January" to 42% for "July"). So, after over six months, one vaccinated with Pfizer, exposed to conditions for infection, is ~60% as likely to be infected vs one unvaccinated, and then well over 60% (it's 58% after three months) as likely to transmit said infection vs one unvaccinated (I am not sure about the distinction of vaccinated or unvaccinated as final recipient - at this stage the population is heavily mixed -, the scientific articles should be checked, that data came from the divulgative). So, in the same conditions, one vaccinated with Pfizer after six months is probably with one third of chances a potential vector (60-ish% comparative chance of infection and 60-ish% comparative chance of transmission) for the main variant of concern, when compared to an unvaccinated. Considering an old vaccination in the final recipient - if not partially included in the other data -, one fifth. (If I have read the numbers properly and have not fumbled on anything). The distance in magnitude between the 33%, maybe 20%, I am tentatively computing and that ~0.1%, again vouches for the need for clarity which was valid from day one. (How come we still do not seem to have one dashboard for collected tentative knowledge?) It would have been interesting to have had similar data (transmission rate over time) for Moderna, which had a limited decrease of effectiveness against infection over time.

Cryptonic 5y ago
Mh not sure about the numbers here, but he'll then let's get a third shot (and buy some more Pfizer stock)
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Numbers (of the decline in time for Pfizer): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v... (Still not peer reviewed.) > third shot ... Pfizer There's probably a little inclination in that data to encourage you to consider Moderna. Anyway, it's not just a matter of shots and stocks: there's also a matter of acting conscientiously (as opposed to claims of immunity and "licence to everything" about the vaccine), and appropriately informing to inform that acting. Edit: remember that months ago we had cases of "Welcome to our wedding, some of our guests resulted positive but do not worry: they are asymptomatic". Anecdotal exceptions? No.