7 ms·

The vaccines are 92–95% effective at preventing hospitalisation and death. (They also reduce spread significantly.) That's great. However, that means something

by orra 5y ago

The vaccines are 92–95% effective at preventing hospitalisation and death. (They also reduce spread significantly.) That's great. However, that means something like this is still very useful because of that 5–8%, especially for the elderly and the immunosuppressed, etc. (I share your skepticism anti vaxxers would be interested in an effective treatment.)

penultimatebro 5y ago
The mRNA vaccines do not, and never have, reduce the spread of the virus from one infected person to someone else. The only thing they do is reduce symptoms. That has been known from clinical trials. Everything else is a talking point not based on a peer reviewed scientific study. Or if you think you have a study that refutes this, please post.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > The mRNA vaccines do not, and never have, reduce the spread of the virus from one infected person to someone else That's simply not correct.
  - penultimatebro 5y ago
    Well I’m convinced. Case closed, you win.
    - dang 5y ago
      We've banned this account because it has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      I can see your comment history, and you made the same false statement 3 days prior to this one. You were given long responses with links then. ( e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29078217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29078217 ) The same thing 5 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29058624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29058624 you were given a response that you ignored. Those didn't make any impression on you; you carried on saying the same false thing. So there was no point in trying to convince you this time, it's clear that would be simply a waste of my time to try to change your mind again. You aren't here for that. I'm merely marking your misinformation for the benefit of others.
    - pkaye 5y ago
      California shows that unvaccinated people were 6.8 times more likely to get COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people. https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/ https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        Yes, This trend is true anywhere in the world that has mass vaccination, e.g. UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc7A1bVuSJU&t=56s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc7A1bVuSJU&t=56s IDK why anyone would deny this observable reality.
        angelzen 5y ago
        The linked video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc7A1bVuSJU&t=56s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc7A1bVuSJU&t=56s, is misleading. It shows that the number of unvax cases is much larger than vax cases. I hope that by know it is common knowledge that the pandemic behaves very differently between age groups. Simpson's paradox abounds. The video only breaks down vax/unvax for aggregate numbers. This is a smell. UK publishes the vax/unvax numbers broken down by age groups. See Table 2 in https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1031157/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-44.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/.... Raw numbers: cases between week 40 and week 43 2021 unvax vax 1dose under 18 336893 818 36000 18-29 24097 33649 9500 30-39 25832 71492 7800 40-49 15717 130686 4500 50-59 6701 99722 2000 60-69 2484 56779 800 70-79 917 34305 300 ≥80 471 12339 200 1. In every age group, except under 18, the number of vax cases is larger than the number of unvax cases, contradicting the video on its face. 2. Under 18 has a large case number, which dominates the totals. Some issues: 2.1. Schools have strict testing and tracing policies. The large case numbers may simply an effect of higher testing rates for the respective population. 2.2. Related to 2.1., there are two ways to count cases: PCR cases and symptomatic cases. In case of large case numbers outliers, the difference between the two measures can explain a large difference, though it is impossible to independently verify that a consistent measure was applied for all age groups. 2.3. Vaccination in 12-17 was only recently introduced. VE decreases over time. Studies disagrees by how much. At six months time, for Pfizer I've seen 55%-75%, from a high of 90%. Closer to the vaccination event VE is higher, thus the number of vax cases is temporarily lower. A more realistic assessment assessment ought to a. break down under 18 in to 0-5, 5-11, 12-17, and wait 6 months post vaccination campaign. Note that VE is also a somewhat misleading metric, 90% means 9/10 case reduction, 50% merely 1/2; a small percentage drop in VE at the high values mean a large increase in cases. 3. In some age categories, e.g. 50-59, unvax share of the cases is as small as 6%. Not sure (*) what the unvax rate in UK is for that age group, the reports says somewhere in the low teens, that number has been contested. But 6% is low enough by itself. If that doesn't make you wonder about the official line "unvaccinated people were 6.8 times more likely to get COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.", then nothing will ever do. Can't speak about US data because US is, for some reason, very tight lipped when it comes to publishing basic epi data with breakdown by date, age and vax status. If you have a link to the equivalent of the UK PHE vaccine surveillance report for any US state, please share. (*) Apparently UK is not sure about the vax rates either, because apparently UK doesn't know how many people of a given age live in the country. That is a story for another time.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - miked85 5y ago
    Do you have a source for that? "fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts." [1] [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext#seccestitle160 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      I too can google: https://www.businessinsider.com/covid-vaccine-effectiveness-infectious-fully-vaccinated-people-clear-virus-quicker-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/covid-vaccine-effectiveness-...
      - miked85 5y ago
        So I guess we can just choose which study to believe.
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        Rules of thumb: a) choose the later study b) look at what happens in the real world (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29124652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29124652 ) And, If there is uncertainty (and there always is some small amount of it) then this does not support the parent commenter's strong and confident assertion that "do not, and never have" ... produced an effect.
        miked85 5y ago
        a) we are in a small enough time frame that the latest doesn't mean it is more accurate b) in the real world, we had our biggest outbreak after vaccines were mainstream
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > in the real world, we had our biggest outbreak after vaccines were mainstream Is that supposed to be relevant? When "we had our biggest outbreak" there were/are still sufficient unvaccinated people to transmit an outbreak. You're clearly defending a fixed point of view here. If you want detailed responses to learn from, stop asking for people to do them yet again and look for what already exists upthread. If you're having trouble finding it, start here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29124446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29124446

by orra 5y ago

penultimatebro 5y ago

The mRNA vaccines do not, and never have, reduce the spread of the virus from one infected person to someone else. The only thing they do is reduce symptoms. That has been known from clinical trials. Everything else is a talking point not based on a peer reviewed scientific study. Or if you think you have a study that refutes this, please post.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> The mRNA vaccines do not, and never have, reduce the spread of the virus from one infected person to someone else That's simply not correct.
- penultimatebro 5y ago
  Well I’m convinced. Case closed, you win.
  - dang 5y ago
    We've banned this account because it has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    I can see your comment history, and you made the same false statement 3 days prior to this one. You were given long responses with links then. ( e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29078217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29078217 ) The same thing 5 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29058624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29058624 you were given a response that you ignored. Those didn't make any impression on you; you carried on saying the same false thing. So there was no point in trying to convince you this time, it's clear that would be simply a waste of my time to try to change your mind again. You aren't here for that. I'm merely marking your misinformation for the benefit of others.
  - pkaye 5y ago
    California shows that unvaccinated people were 6.8 times more likely to get COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people. https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/ https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      Yes, This trend is true anywhere in the world that has mass vaccination, e.g. UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc7A1bVuSJU&t=56s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc7A1bVuSJU&t=56s IDK why anyone would deny this observable reality.
      - angelzen 5y ago
        The linked video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc7A1bVuSJU&t=56s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc7A1bVuSJU&t=56s, is misleading. It shows that the number of unvax cases is much larger than vax cases. I hope that by know it is common knowledge that the pandemic behaves very differently between age groups. Simpson's paradox abounds. The video only breaks down vax/unvax for aggregate numbers. This is a smell. UK publishes the vax/unvax numbers broken down by age groups. See Table 2 in https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1031157/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-44.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/.... Raw numbers: cases between week 40 and week 43 2021 unvax vax 1dose under 18 336893 818 36000 18-29 24097 33649 9500 30-39 25832 71492 7800 40-49 15717 130686 4500 50-59 6701 99722 2000 60-69 2484 56779 800 70-79 917 34305 300 ≥80 471 12339 200 1. In every age group, except under 18, the number of vax cases is larger than the number of unvax cases, contradicting the video on its face. 2. Under 18 has a large case number, which dominates the totals. Some issues: 2.1. Schools have strict testing and tracing policies. The large case numbers may simply an effect of higher testing rates for the respective population. 2.2. Related to 2.1., there are two ways to count cases: PCR cases and symptomatic cases. In case of large case numbers outliers, the difference between the two measures can explain a large difference, though it is impossible to independently verify that a consistent measure was applied for all age groups. 2.3. Vaccination in 12-17 was only recently introduced. VE decreases over time. Studies disagrees by how much. At six months time, for Pfizer I've seen 55%-75%, from a high of 90%. Closer to the vaccination event VE is higher, thus the number of vax cases is temporarily lower. A more realistic assessment assessment ought to a. break down under 18 in to 0-5, 5-11, 12-17, and wait 6 months post vaccination campaign. Note that VE is also a somewhat misleading metric, 90% means 9/10 case reduction, 50% merely 1/2; a small percentage drop in VE at the high values mean a large increase in cases. 3. In some age categories, e.g. 50-59, unvax share of the cases is as small as 6%. Not sure (*) what the unvax rate in UK is for that age group, the reports says somewhere in the low teens, that number has been contested. But 6% is low enough by itself. If that doesn't make you wonder about the official line "unvaccinated people were 6.8 times more likely to get COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.", then nothing will ever do. Can't speak about US data because US is, for some reason, very tight lipped when it comes to publishing basic epi data with breakdown by date, age and vax status. If you have a link to the equivalent of the UK PHE vaccine surveillance report for any US state, please share. (*) Apparently UK is not sure about the vax rates either, because apparently UK doesn't know how many people of a given age live in the country. That is a story for another time.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- miked85 5y ago
  Do you have a source for that? "fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts." [1] [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext#seccestitle160 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    I too can google: https://www.businessinsider.com/covid-vaccine-effectiveness-infectious-fully-vaccinated-people-clear-virus-quicker-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/covid-vaccine-effectiveness-...
    - miked85 5y ago
      So I guess we can just choose which study to believe.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        Rules of thumb: a) choose the later study b) look at what happens in the real world (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29124652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29124652 ) And, If there is uncertainty (and there always is some small amount of it) then this does not support the parent commenter's strong and confident assertion that "do not, and never have" ... produced an effect.
        miked85 5y ago
        a) we are in a small enough time frame that the latest doesn't mean it is more accurate b) in the real world, we had our biggest outbreak after vaccines were mainstream
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > in the real world, we had our biggest outbreak after vaccines were mainstream Is that supposed to be relevant? When "we had our biggest outbreak" there were/are still sufficient unvaccinated people to transmit an outbreak. You're clearly defending a fixed point of view here. If you want detailed responses to learn from, stop asking for people to do them yet again and look for what already exists upthread. If you're having trouble finding it, start here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29124446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29124446