3 ms·

Some napkin math: According to Wikipedia, the population of Waterford County is 116,176. With an infection rate of 405.7 per 100,000, that means ~471.3 total

Some napkin math: According to Wikipedia, the population of Waterford County is 116,176. With an infection rate of 405.7 per 100,000, that means ~471.3 total infections at present. At 99.7% vaccinated, that leaves 348.528 unvaccinated. So that could mean all of the unvaccinated got infected + 122.772 breakthrough infections, which would mean the vaccine is approximately 99.895% effective at preventing infection based on these numbers.

majou 5y ago
That's uh, pretty optimistic math you got there.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  My point, which I thought obvious given the question I was responding to, is that the numbers from the article are not good evidence of vaccine ineffectiveness at preventing transmission, and shouldn't be taken as such. Let's assume the worst case scenario from the numbers given, that all the cases are breakthrough cases and none of the unvaccinated are infected (unlikely to say the least). At that point based on these numbers the vaccine can be considered 99.6% effective at preventing transmission. So if you're going to challenge vaccine effectiveness, do it with better data. I should add that the OP I was responding to was literally questioning vaccine effectiveness, with a vagueness that suggests some sort of anti-vax dog-whistling. And I am sick and tired of the vaccines being questioned by people who refuse to engage even childhood math skills to analyze the crappy data they bring to the table, but yet speak with triumphant, quippy rhetoric like imitating their favorite TV characters somehow lends credence to their argument. Am I projecting too much onto the OP? Maybe, but I've been in enough of these conversations to know what they're likely to sound like.
  - majou 5y ago
    Your conclusions make no sense in both cases. You need the number of unvaccinated and vaccinated cases to make any comparison. We do have data on vaccine effectiveness; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29253672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29253672

majou 5y ago

That's uh, pretty optimistic math you got there.

scottLobster 5y ago
My point, which I thought obvious given the question I was responding to, is that the numbers from the article are not good evidence of vaccine ineffectiveness at preventing transmission, and shouldn't be taken as such. Let's assume the worst case scenario from the numbers given, that all the cases are breakthrough cases and none of the unvaccinated are infected (unlikely to say the least). At that point based on these numbers the vaccine can be considered 99.6% effective at preventing transmission. So if you're going to challenge vaccine effectiveness, do it with better data. I should add that the OP I was responding to was literally questioning vaccine effectiveness, with a vagueness that suggests some sort of anti-vax dog-whistling. And I am sick and tired of the vaccines being questioned by people who refuse to engage even childhood math skills to analyze the crappy data they bring to the table, but yet speak with triumphant, quippy rhetoric like imitating their favorite TV characters somehow lends credence to their argument. Am I projecting too much onto the OP? Maybe, but I've been in enough of these conversations to know what they're likely to sound like.
- majou 5y ago
  Your conclusions make no sense in both cases. You need the number of unvaccinated and vaccinated cases to make any comparison. We do have data on vaccine effectiveness; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29253672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29253672