4 ms·

Are you implying that areas of lower vaccination coverage are seeing higher infection rates? That does not seem to be the case under rigorous analysis: https://

by caylus 5y ago

Are you implying that areas of lower vaccination coverage are seeing higher infection rates? That does not seem to be the case under rigorous analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/ That's the problem with "reality" - the reality you see is driven by the media that reports the reality to you. Presumably the media you read likes to run stories like "lots of cases in Florida" to score points against the "other team", while ignoring deeper analysis like the paper I linked.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tremon 5y ago
I would expect areas of lower vaccination coverage to show higher hospitalization rates, not necessarily higher infection rates. Got any studies on that statistic perchance? The infection rate is unreliable because it requires people allowing themselves to be tested when sick, and I would expect people that refuse to be vaccinated also refuse to be tested, on the same grounds.
- caylus 5y ago
  Sure, it's pretty well established that the vaccines reduce severity of symptoms and risk of death. Just not transmission. It's an important distinction to draw, especially in the context of mandates. Your suggested confounder is plausible, but I find the possible confounders in the other direction even more plausible: - Many places have policies like "proof of vaccination /or/ positive test required", which would inflate the number of confirmed cases in less vaccinated areas. - Someone with reduced symptoms due to vaccination is less likely to notice them and thus decide to get a test, or to have symptoms severe enough to be hospitalized and thus definitely get a test. And then the really scary one: - If vaccines hide symptoms but don't significantly reduce transmission, a vaccinated person is less likely to stay at home during an infection, increasing community transmission. Further evidence for that hypothesis comes from comparisons of viral load in confirmed cases between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, which finds no significant difference: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v...
maxerickson 5y ago
"rigorous analysis"
- caylus 5y ago
  It seems hard to get much more rigorous than a peer reviewed scientific article in the European Journal of Epidemiology.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    You can go on Twitter and do it. https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1448892208191467520 https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1448892208191467520

by caylus 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tremon 5y ago

I would expect areas of lower vaccination coverage to show higher hospitalization rates, not necessarily higher infection rates. Got any studies on that statistic perchance? The infection rate is unreliable because it requires people allowing themselves to be tested when sick, and I would expect people that refuse to be vaccinated also refuse to be tested, on the same grounds.

caylus 5y ago
Sure, it's pretty well established that the vaccines reduce severity of symptoms and risk of death. Just not transmission. It's an important distinction to draw, especially in the context of mandates. Your suggested confounder is plausible, but I find the possible confounders in the other direction even more plausible: - Many places have policies like "proof of vaccination /or/ positive test required", which would inflate the number of confirmed cases in less vaccinated areas. - Someone with reduced symptoms due to vaccination is less likely to notice them and thus decide to get a test, or to have symptoms severe enough to be hospitalized and thus definitely get a test. And then the really scary one: - If vaccines hide symptoms but don't significantly reduce transmission, a vaccinated person is less likely to stay at home during an infection, increasing community transmission. Further evidence for that hypothesis comes from comparisons of viral load in confirmed cases between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, which finds no significant difference: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v...

maxerickson 5y ago

"rigorous analysis"

caylus 5y ago
It seems hard to get much more rigorous than a peer reviewed scientific article in the European Journal of Epidemiology.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  You can go on Twitter and do it. https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1448892208191467520 https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1448892208191467520