4 ms·

> But the vaccinated are being infected at higher rates than the non-vaccinated according to UK govt data I just checked your source and can't find anything to

> But the vaccinated are being infected at higher rates than the non-vaccinated according to UK govt data I just checked your source and can't find anything to confirm your claim. Just take the latest vaccine surveillance report https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1034383/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-46.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... and please do tell me where it confirms your claim that vaccinated people are infected at higher rates than the non-vaccinated. I am very intrigued.

crimsonnoodle58 5y ago
From the PDF you linked. Go to Table 6. First and second columns are shown per 100,000 people. For ages 18-80 the cases per 100,000 people are the same or higher (up to 2x higher) in the fully vaccinated vs the unvaccinated.
- plantain 5y ago
  Isn't that entirely expected with most of the population vaccinated? I imagine most car crash deaths are from those wearing seatbelts too.
  - agentgumshoe 5y ago
    No, the rate per 100k should be much lower if vaccination is working properly. Yes the case numbers would be expected to be higher (a lot of people argue 'base rate fallacy'to support this), but that fails to address that the vaccine should reduce the rate per population, even if raw numbers are expected to be higher due to coverage. The data is not supporting that.
  - crimsonnoodle58 5y ago
    The UK is only around 67.6% fully vaccinated. Regardless, these numbers are per 100,000 people based on their vaccination status. They are normalised.
- djantje 5y ago
  If 100% of the people are vaccinated, 100% of the infections will be from vaccinated people.
  - crimsonnoodle58 5y ago
    It's per 100,000 people, based on their vaccination status. It's already normalised.
    - djantje 5y ago
      You are correct, I must say I didn't expect this to be the case (ofcourse I also read the footnote, but still)
- tgv 5y ago
  So that would contradict this statement from the same report: "With the delta variant, vaccine effectiveness against infection has been estimated at around 65% with Vaxzevria and 80% with Comirnaty (4)." The footnote under that table also says "Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection." Edit: it would also be difficult to reconcile with the enormous disparity between <18 and subsequent rows.
ColinHayhurst 5y ago
See the table on page 23. 2nd and 3rd columns. Like all stats treat with caution - see comments on p24.
- Febra33 5y ago
  Thank you. I have just looked at the table and you seem to be right. The infection rate in the age range 30 to 80 is higher for vaccinated than unvaccinated. For the other groups it is higher in the unvaccinated populations (≤30, 80≥). It seems like vaccinated people in the age range 30 to 80 seems to behave more careless due to the fact that they are vaccinated and happen to catch the virus. At the same time I have been looking at the other columns as well. The first column shows the rate of infection in people that have just tested positive. The other three columns show how much more dangerous the virus is to people who have not been vaccinated and end up in the hospital. Way more unvaccinated people end up in the hospital than vaccinated people. At the same time, way more cases of unvaccinated people that ended up in the hospital end in death than in cases of vaccinated people. The hospitalisation rates in the unvaccinated populations are from 2 to up to 4 times higher than in vaccinated populations. The death rates even more so show this discrepancy between the cases that end up in death coming from unvaccinated vs. vaccinated people. Besides that, there are some very important pieces of information missing in this entire story. We do not know how many people have had previous infections. Read the following comment on p24: > people who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks With that being said, I give you that, you are right in the fact that there are more infections in the vaccinated population than in the unvaccinated, but at the same time the former seem to have a better time after contracting the virus than the latter (proof are the death rates). With that being said, I do not think that the right decision is to dump the vaccination certificates/passports, rather I think the right decision would be to further implement the certificate as a requirement alongside periodic testing. It has been proven in other parts of the world that the vaccination certificate is indeed an incentive for people to get the vaccine, which in turn would help the hospitalisation rates fall. Testing is still detrimental.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wsc981 5y ago
In Germany a MP has compared statistics of various states and noticed more excess deaths in states that have higher vaccination rates. She has asked to German Ministry of Health to look into the cause. https://youtu.be/iKVOqYUAHTo https://youtu.be/iKVOqYUAHTo

crimsonnoodle58 5y ago

From the PDF you linked. Go to Table 6. First and second columns are shown per 100,000 people. For ages 18-80 the cases per 100,000 people are the same or higher (up to 2x higher) in the fully vaccinated vs the unvaccinated.

plantain 5y ago
Isn't that entirely expected with most of the population vaccinated? I imagine most car crash deaths are from those wearing seatbelts too.
- agentgumshoe 5y ago
  No, the rate per 100k should be much lower if vaccination is working properly. Yes the case numbers would be expected to be higher (a lot of people argue 'base rate fallacy'to support this), but that fails to address that the vaccine should reduce the rate per population, even if raw numbers are expected to be higher due to coverage. The data is not supporting that.
- crimsonnoodle58 5y ago
  The UK is only around 67.6% fully vaccinated. Regardless, these numbers are per 100,000 people based on their vaccination status. They are normalised.
djantje 5y ago
If 100% of the people are vaccinated, 100% of the infections will be from vaccinated people.
- crimsonnoodle58 5y ago
  It's per 100,000 people, based on their vaccination status. It's already normalised.
  - djantje 5y ago
    You are correct, I must say I didn't expect this to be the case (ofcourse I also read the footnote, but still)
tgv 5y ago
So that would contradict this statement from the same report: "With the delta variant, vaccine effectiveness against infection has been estimated at around 65% with Vaxzevria and 80% with Comirnaty (4)." The footnote under that table also says "Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection." Edit: it would also be difficult to reconcile with the enormous disparity between <18 and subsequent rows.

ColinHayhurst 5y ago

See the table on page 23. 2nd and 3rd columns. Like all stats treat with caution - see comments on p24.

Febra33 5y ago
Thank you. I have just looked at the table and you seem to be right. The infection rate in the age range 30 to 80 is higher for vaccinated than unvaccinated. For the other groups it is higher in the unvaccinated populations (≤30, 80≥). It seems like vaccinated people in the age range 30 to 80 seems to behave more careless due to the fact that they are vaccinated and happen to catch the virus. At the same time I have been looking at the other columns as well. The first column shows the rate of infection in people that have just tested positive. The other three columns show how much more dangerous the virus is to people who have not been vaccinated and end up in the hospital. Way more unvaccinated people end up in the hospital than vaccinated people. At the same time, way more cases of unvaccinated people that ended up in the hospital end in death than in cases of vaccinated people. The hospitalisation rates in the unvaccinated populations are from 2 to up to 4 times higher than in vaccinated populations. The death rates even more so show this discrepancy between the cases that end up in death coming from unvaccinated vs. vaccinated people. Besides that, there are some very important pieces of information missing in this entire story. We do not know how many people have had previous infections. Read the following comment on p24: > people who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks With that being said, I give you that, you are right in the fact that there are more infections in the vaccinated population than in the unvaccinated, but at the same time the former seem to have a better time after contracting the virus than the latter (proof are the death rates). With that being said, I do not think that the right decision is to dump the vaccination certificates/passports, rather I think the right decision would be to further implement the certificate as a requirement alongside periodic testing. It has been proven in other parts of the world that the vaccination certificate is indeed an incentive for people to get the vaccine, which in turn would help the hospitalisation rates fall. Testing is still detrimental.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

wsc981 5y ago

In Germany a MP has compared statistics of various states and noticed more excess deaths in states that have higher vaccination rates. She has asked to German Ministry of Health to look into the cause. https://youtu.be/iKVOqYUAHTo https://youtu.be/iKVOqYUAHTo