6 ms·

You're looking at presented cases and hospitalizations - a fraction of a fraction of total covid infections. There's no way this accurately reflects R0 (assumin

You're looking at presented cases and hospitalizations - a fraction of a fraction of total covid infections. There's no way this accurately reflects R0 (assuming that's what you're talking about - sorry if I'm wrong!). And determining the impact vaccines have on R0 is nearly impossible - there's too many unknown unknowns that would confound it. For example, if a flu vaccine was administered at the end of a seasonal peak, we'd think the vaccine caused the dropoff because we don't understand seasonality.

Retric 5y ago
We don’t actually care about infections, we care about the things infections cause. A single virus infecting a single cell is an infection, what happens after that depends on the immune system. Antibodies are supposed to stick around briefly after an infection to minimize the risks of reinfection. For near lifetime immunity as provided by the measles vaccine it comes down to memory B cells which drastically speed up the adaptive immune response. Thus reducing the period an infection is contagious and reducing the risks of severe infection. Note, the above applies both to natural infections and vaccination. Also note many childhood vaccinations are effective for decades.
- rajin444 5y ago
  GP was referring to a limited subset of data that gives an incorrect picture of what the R0 is. I was trying to point out why that data is the wrong set to draw a meaningful number from. I’m not sure what you’re trying to point out, sorry!
  - Retric 5y ago
    Yea, I skipped that part of your comment as meaningless. RO excludes vaccinations and prior infections by definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number In epidemiology, the basic reproduction number, or basic reproductive number (sometimes called basic reproduction ratio or basic reproductive rate), denoted R 0 R_{0} (pronounced R nought or R zero),[1] of an infection is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection.[2] The definition assumes that no other individuals are infected or immunized (naturally or through vaccination). Some definitions, such as that of the Australian Department of Health, add the absence of "any deliberate intervention in disease transmission". I assume your concerned about transmission, but that’s not a constant when you include vaccinations reducing infection severity.
YZF 5y ago
First let's deal with the nitpicky semantics. R0 is is the basic reproduction number while R generally denotes the effective reproduction number. I am talking about R. There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R. While it's true that the accuracy of estimates for R depends on many factors and certainly there have always been some cases flying under the radar (though that has been studied extensively via antibody studies and other means) proxies like the number of people dying, the number of people hospitalized, while controlling for things like vaccinations are accurate enough to detect this. There are tons of studies, random e.g.: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/10/1245/pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/10/1245/pdf Trying to argue confounding factors vs. the observations is IMO very weak. Ofcourse we can't tell anything with certainty in this domain. It seems like the people who want proof here set the bar impossibly high, no proof will ever satisfy them. EDIT: adding some more references... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-spread-covid-new-research-finds-n1280583 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccinated-arent-just-as-likely-to-spread-covid/620161/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccin... https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests-covid-vaccines-do-reduce-transmission-how-does-work https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests... https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/phm/2021/06/covid-19-transmission-vaccinated-cases.pdf?sc_lang=en https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/ph...
- rajin444 5y ago
  > There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R > Ofcourse we can't tell anything with certainty in this domain Which one is it? I'm sorry - there are issues with nearly all the links and data you've provided, but I don't have the time to go through them with you. I agree with you that the vaccine is very likely impacting R. I don't agree that it is enough to matter yet - we could vaccinate everyone and covid would still spread. The vaccines will keep people from dying. Any more benefit than that is still unclear.
  - 5y ago

Retric 5y ago

We don’t actually care about infections, we care about the things infections cause. A single virus infecting a single cell is an infection, what happens after that depends on the immune system. Antibodies are supposed to stick around briefly after an infection to minimize the risks of reinfection. For near lifetime immunity as provided by the measles vaccine it comes down to memory B cells which drastically speed up the adaptive immune response. Thus reducing the period an infection is contagious and reducing the risks of severe infection. Note, the above applies both to natural infections and vaccination. Also note many childhood vaccinations are effective for decades.

rajin444 5y ago
GP was referring to a limited subset of data that gives an incorrect picture of what the R0 is. I was trying to point out why that data is the wrong set to draw a meaningful number from. I’m not sure what you’re trying to point out, sorry!
- Retric 5y ago
  Yea, I skipped that part of your comment as meaningless. RO excludes vaccinations and prior infections by definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number In epidemiology, the basic reproduction number, or basic reproductive number (sometimes called basic reproduction ratio or basic reproductive rate), denoted R 0 R_{0} (pronounced R nought or R zero),[1] of an infection is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection.[2] The definition assumes that no other individuals are infected or immunized (naturally or through vaccination). Some definitions, such as that of the Australian Department of Health, add the absence of "any deliberate intervention in disease transmission". I assume your concerned about transmission, but that’s not a constant when you include vaccinations reducing infection severity.

YZF 5y ago

First let's deal with the nitpicky semantics. R0 is is the basic reproduction number while R generally denotes the effective reproduction number. I am talking about R. There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R. While it's true that the accuracy of estimates for R depends on many factors and certainly there have always been some cases flying under the radar (though that has been studied extensively via antibody studies and other means) proxies like the number of people dying, the number of people hospitalized, while controlling for things like vaccinations are accurate enough to detect this. There are tons of studies, random e.g.: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/10/1245/pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/10/1245/pdf Trying to argue confounding factors vs. the observations is IMO very weak. Ofcourse we can't tell anything with certainty in this domain. It seems like the people who want proof here set the bar impossibly high, no proof will ever satisfy them. EDIT: adding some more references... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-spread-covid-new-research-finds-n1280583 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccinated-arent-just-as-likely-to-spread-covid/620161/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccin... https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests-covid-vaccines-do-reduce-transmission-how-does-work https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests... https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/phm/2021/06/covid-19-transmission-vaccinated-cases.pdf?sc_lang=en https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/ph...

rajin444 5y ago
> There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R > Ofcourse we can't tell anything with certainty in this domain Which one is it? I'm sorry - there are issues with nearly all the links and data you've provided, but I don't have the time to go through them with you. I agree with you that the vaccine is very likely impacting R. I don't agree that it is enough to matter yet - we could vaccinate everyone and covid would still spread. The vaccines will keep people from dying. Any more benefit than that is still unclear.
- 5y ago