3 ms·

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

by 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.
- YZF 5y ago
  You're contradicting yourself. You're saying you agree with me the vaccine is very likely impacting R yet you're saying it doesn't help. Which one is it? We have lots of places, such as where I live, where the number of deaths and hospitalizations and daily cases is about level. Since you agreed with me vaccinations impact R you can also agree with me that going from 75% vaccinations to 100% vaccinations is going to cause that level trajectory to go down? What is your projection? As to your question "which one is it" there is no conflict. The evidence is indisputable yet there is no certainty. Simply because in this domain there is no certainty. It's not a math proof. It is by far the most likely thing that's happening. I mean maybe aliens are curing people to coincide with the different levels of vaccinations but I've yet to hear some reasonable hypothesis how in place like where I live where seasonality dictates higher rates, restrictions have been relaxed, and there is clear correlation between higher vaccination rates and reduced other metrics (change in new cases/day, hospitalizations, deaths). I think if you disagree with the obvious you should at least offer some other hypothesis supported by some data.
  - hackinthebochs 5y ago
    >You're contradicting yourself. You're saying you agree with me the vaccine is very likely impacting R yet you're saying it doesn't help. Which one is it? When it comes to exponential growth, the difference in practice between an exponent of 1.5 vs 2 is negligible.
    - YZF 5y ago
      But the difference between 1.0 and 0.5 is not. Where in the west are we currently seeing 1.5 or 2? Have a look here: https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/national/canada/ https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/national/canada/
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R. I think you are misusing the word indisputable, since clearly, people are disputing it. > 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. You just listed a number of proxies that are inaccurate, and/or, generally missing. Why? Simply because Covid is highly dangerous to the advanced in age, those that express ACE2, and those with multiple co-morbidities, in particular obese diabetics. For example, a white male 6' 200 lbs with no comorbidities nonsmoker has the following mortality rate by age: 18: 2.1 per 1M 30: 2.1 per 1M 45: 1.6 per 100K 60: 4.3 per 100K 75: 2.2 per 10k 90: 0.7 per 10k So, while covid may move through a retirement community like the Death Angel, across a team of 16 year old soccer players most will be asymptomatic, and a few may appear to have a cold. As someone that has had access to a regional hospital system's covid counts, I can assure you that this is not a disease of the very young and fit. Our surveillance numbers around covid antibodies is incredibly low because it is only a tiny percentage of the population that is getting tested for antibodies. There are more people being tested for active infections, than there are for antibodies. Indisputable this is not.
- YZF 5y ago
  You're making it sound like the people looking at this are idiots. Of course this is tracked across age groups. Look at the BC data where it's broken down by age. Also are you suggesting that the relative portion of the population in certain age groups has changed dramatically? Because otherwise you can still look at the aggregate as indicators. Sorry if I'm misusing the work indisputable. English is not my mother tongue. Looking at the dictionary I also don't think it means what you think it means. Someone can dispute anything. We could say gravity is indisputable but someone can come and say there's no gravity. People say the earth is flat. Possibly in this day and age nothing is indisputable. From where I stand, given the evidence, the people who say something like "vaccination has no impact on R" are not far from people claiming the earth is flat. I mean maybe the earth is flat. Even the guy who responded to me saying I was wrong then changes his mind on that.

by YZF 5y ago

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.

YZF 5y ago
You're contradicting yourself. You're saying you agree with me the vaccine is very likely impacting R yet you're saying it doesn't help. Which one is it? We have lots of places, such as where I live, where the number of deaths and hospitalizations and daily cases is about level. Since you agreed with me vaccinations impact R you can also agree with me that going from 75% vaccinations to 100% vaccinations is going to cause that level trajectory to go down? What is your projection? As to your question "which one is it" there is no conflict. The evidence is indisputable yet there is no certainty. Simply because in this domain there is no certainty. It's not a math proof. It is by far the most likely thing that's happening. I mean maybe aliens are curing people to coincide with the different levels of vaccinations but I've yet to hear some reasonable hypothesis how in place like where I live where seasonality dictates higher rates, restrictions have been relaxed, and there is clear correlation between higher vaccination rates and reduced other metrics (change in new cases/day, hospitalizations, deaths). I think if you disagree with the obvious you should at least offer some other hypothesis supported by some data.
- hackinthebochs 5y ago
  >You're contradicting yourself. You're saying you agree with me the vaccine is very likely impacting R yet you're saying it doesn't help. Which one is it? When it comes to exponential growth, the difference in practice between an exponent of 1.5 vs 2 is negligible.
  - YZF 5y ago
    But the difference between 1.0 and 0.5 is not. Where in the west are we currently seeing 1.5 or 2? Have a look here: https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/national/canada/ https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/national/canada/

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

> There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R. I think you are misusing the word indisputable, since clearly, people are disputing it. > 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. You just listed a number of proxies that are inaccurate, and/or, generally missing. Why? Simply because Covid is highly dangerous to the advanced in age, those that express ACE2, and those with multiple co-morbidities, in particular obese diabetics. For example, a white male 6' 200 lbs with no comorbidities nonsmoker has the following mortality rate by age: 18: 2.1 per 1M 30: 2.1 per 1M 45: 1.6 per 100K 60: 4.3 per 100K 75: 2.2 per 10k 90: 0.7 per 10k So, while covid may move through a retirement community like the Death Angel, across a team of 16 year old soccer players most will be asymptomatic, and a few may appear to have a cold. As someone that has had access to a regional hospital system's covid counts, I can assure you that this is not a disease of the very young and fit. Our surveillance numbers around covid antibodies is incredibly low because it is only a tiny percentage of the population that is getting tested for antibodies. There are more people being tested for active infections, than there are for antibodies. Indisputable this is not.

YZF 5y ago
You're making it sound like the people looking at this are idiots. Of course this is tracked across age groups. Look at the BC data where it's broken down by age. Also are you suggesting that the relative portion of the population in certain age groups has changed dramatically? Because otherwise you can still look at the aggregate as indicators. Sorry if I'm misusing the work indisputable. English is not my mother tongue. Looking at the dictionary I also don't think it means what you think it means. Someone can dispute anything. We could say gravity is indisputable but someone can come and say there's no gravity. People say the earth is flat. Possibly in this day and age nothing is indisputable. From where I stand, given the evidence, the people who say something like "vaccination has no impact on R" are not far from people claiming the earth is flat. I mean maybe the earth is flat. Even the guy who responded to me saying I was wrong then changes his mind on that.