3 ms·
> Suggesting that these cases should be counted in favor of vaccine efficacy is brazenly dishonest. This article is flamebait. This seems to be a complete mis
by SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> Suggesting that these cases should be counted in favor of vaccine efficacy is brazenly dishonest. This article is flamebait.
This seems to be a complete misreading of what the article is saying. Nowhere does it claim that "immunity due to prior infection should be counted as due to the vaccine" merely that it makes the "unvaccinated" group look better than it actually is, as it should be further subdivided to "account for past infection" in a subgroup.
Drawing the conclusion that we should therefore ignore the article entirely is unwarranted. Let us not be brazenly dishonest.
- DannyBee 5y ago1. This would require testing tons of people for antibody response all the time. That seems hard. We do at least have antibody tests that will test for infection vs vaccination. 2. If you are going to go this far, you'd also want the "vaccinated but had no effect" group. The vaccine will not generate an immune response (or an effective one) in everyone, that's just how it works. So the vaccinated group (and "breakthrough cases") include some percent of people who were vaccinated, but it didn't really do anything to them. You'd want to know this number, because you want to know things like "how many breakthrough cases are people where the vaccine had no real effect vs people where the vaccine generated an effective antibody response, but not against this variant" Especially because the "breakthrough" rate is small.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoOK, but if doing this subdivision well is prohibitively hard, that does not not make the article dishonest about these groups. It does not "pretend that immunity due to prior infection is due to the vaccine".
- nojokes 5y agoNot necessarily. You can also sample the subset of people.