3 ms·
The logic is bad. You need to compare 5 groups. Your group 3 lumps together people that were previously infected with those that were not previously infected. B
by loonster 5y ago
The logic is bad. You need to compare 5 groups. Your group 3 lumps together people that were previously infected with those that were not previously infected. By doing that, it would artificially show the vaccine was more effective than it should be.
The 5 groups:
1a. Never vaccinated, No prior infection
1b. Never vaccinated, prior infection
2a. Vaccinated, No prior infection
2b. Vaccinated, prior infection (Infected then Vaccinated)
2c. Vaccinated, prior infection (Vaccinated then Infected)
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoFiner grained is better, yes. But I don't think that this supports the idea that anyone "pretends that immunity due to prior infection is due to the vaccine."
- loonster 5y agoYes it does. Just replace the vaccine with snake oil and follow it to its logical conclusions. I'll use some BS numbers to make the point. Let's assume: study population of 100, 20% of the population had a prior infection, half are given the snake oil. Starting conditions: 1. Never infected, Never Snaked: 40 2. Prior infected, Never Snaked:10 3. Never infected, Snaked: 40 4. Prior infected, Snaked: 10 Now let's assume wave 2 happens. 20% of the never infected gets infected, and 0% of the previously infected get reinfected. Both groups 1+2 combined and 3+4 combined have an average infection rate of 16% for wave 2. The groups are equal because snake oil is bullshit. What the Ars author was suggesting is to compare group 1 with group 3+4 combined. Now you have a 20% infection rate vs a 16% infection rate. The snake oil appears to have an (20-16)/20 = 25% effectiveness just by including previously acquired immunity.
- nojokes 5y agoYou forget boosting :) and infected after boosting and ...