5 ms·
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 hig
by 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 agoIsn't that entirely expected with most of the population vaccinated? I imagine most car crash deaths are from those wearing seatbelts too.
- agentgumshoe 5y agoNo, 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 agoThe 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 agoIf 100% of the people are vaccinated, 100% of the infections will be from vaccinated people.
- crimsonnoodle58 5y agoIt's per 100,000 people, based on their vaccination status. It's already normalised.
- djantje 5y agoYou are correct, I must say I didn't expect this to be the case (ofcourse I also read the footnote, but still)
- tgv 5y agoSo 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.