4 ms·
The first study is clearly underpowered to say anything about the risk after more than around 150 days. This can be seen in figures 2 and S1, where the confiden
by fsh 5y ago
The first study is clearly underpowered to say anything about the risk after more than around 150 days. This can be seen in figures 2 and S1, where the confidence intervals get larger than the effect size at around this point. Combining multiple age groups together also leads to a large risk of getting incorrect results due to Simpson's paradox [1]. But with so little data, the authors probably couldn't stratify for age groups without the confidence intervals exploding.
A much larger study from the US [2] shows no measurable decline in the protection against hospitalization due to COVID over more than 5 months after vaccination.
[1] https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-...
[2] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02183-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02183-8
- incrudible 5y agoThe way I see it, both studies show effectively the same result with similar confidence intervals. The US study however covers a shorter timeframe. As far as hospitalizations go, I am not arguing with that, vaccines clearly reduce disease burden. The question was: Are vaccines effective at stopping spread? Many countries are experiencing record infection rates with a large majority of the population vaccinated. This suggests to me that vaccines are not effective in that regard.