4 ms·

Here's a summary, quoted from the article: > RESULTS > A total of 843,208 participants met the eligibility criteria, of whom 758,118 (90%) received the booste

Here's a summary, quoted from the article: > RESULTS > A total of 843,208 participants met the eligibility criteria, of whom 758,118 (90%) received the booster during the 54-day study period. Death due to Covid-19 occurred in 65 participants in the booster group (0.16 per 100,000 persons per day) and in 137 participants in the nonbooster group (2.98 per 100,000 persons per day). The adjusted hazard ratio for death due to Covid-19 in the booster group, as compared with the nonbooster group, was 0.10 (95% confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.14; P<0.001). > CONCLUSIONS > Participants who received a booster at least 5 months after a second dose of BNT162b2 had 90% lower mortality due to Covid-19 than participants who did not receive a booster. This paper can't take omicron into account, but, it's definitely good news. I'll take a 90% lower mortality rate any day.

timr 5y ago
> I'll take a 90% lower mortality rate any day. Really? Any day? Read the part you quoted carefully: the death rate in the control group is 3 per 100,000. And if you read the rest of the paper, you'll see that the study population was entirely over age 50. Remember that the risk of death from Covid-19 goes up exponentially with age -- something like 90% of all fatalities are over age 50 [1]. If you're in the typical HN demographic (<30 yo), your risk of mortality from Covid-19 is much lower than what is reported for baseline here. I want to put this in perspective. Per The Book of Risks (chapter 8; annual risks) [2], your overall chance of dying in a typical year is 1 in 115 (~870 per 100,000) Your chance of being murdered is 1 in 11,000 (9 per 100,000). The chance you'll die of an accident is 1 in 2,900 (34 per 100,000). From a fall: 1 in 20,000 (5 per 100,000). By getting hit by a car while walking: 1 in 40,000 (2.5 per 100,000). In other words, your all-ages chance of dying from Covid-19 after two doses is somewhere between your annual chance of dying from a fall, and dying after being hit by a car -- and it's much lower than that if you're under age 50! Divide that number by ten, and you're in the realm of risks that any sane person wouldn't even consider: the annual chance of dying by freezing, for example (1 in 3,000,000). Point being: dividing a very small number by 10 is indeed a 90% risk reduction, but you have to weigh it against the costs very carefully. There are tons of reasons why I wouldn't take a 90% relative risk reduction, if the baseline risk were quite small (as it is here). [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254488/us-share-of-total-covid-deaths-by-age-group/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254488/us-share-of-tota... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Book-Risks-Fascinating-Facts-Chances/dp/0471310344 https://www.amazon.com/Book-Risks-Fascinating-Facts-Chances/...
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Yes. Any day, and twice on Sunday. If 90% of COVID deaths in the US could have been prevented (in fact, many could have been)[0][1], that cuts this whole thing down to a very bad flu season, comparable to the 1957 flu pandemic [3]. Would you rather not cut your risk by 90%? Edit: Incidentally, I have been hit by cars while walking 3 times. No injuries, luckily, since they were very low speed impacts. Why are you seemingly advocating against something (getting a booster shot) that's also extremely unlikely to harm you? --- [0]: https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/coronavirus/new-study-finds-that-40-of-covid-19-deaths-could-have-been-prevented https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/coronavirus/n... [1]: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/covid-19-continues-to-be-a-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s/ https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/covid-1... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957%E2%80%931958_influenza_pandemic#By_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957%E2%80%931958_influenza_pa...
  - timr 5y ago
    > Would you rather not cut your risk by 90%? Depends entirely on the cost vs. the benefit. As I said, a 90% relative reduction is meaningless without knowledge of the baseline risk. And once you know the baseline risk, you can do the math instead of just reacting emotionally.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      Well, let's see: cost, $0, and a few minutes. Extremely tiny risk of serious side effects. Benefit... better immune response to the nasty virus going around. Let's also not forget this doesn't benefit just you; it benefits everybody you probably won't infect if you get exposed to the virus. No emotion involved, at least not from me. Seems clear enough to me. You seem to be the one having an emotional response here.
      - timr 5y ago
        > Extremely tiny risk of serious side effects. How tiny? It matters. Your risk of a bad outcome from Covid-19 is extremely tiny. (Also, by the way: the costs are greater than what you pay for the shot. Miss a day of work? Spend a day in bed? That's a cost.) > it benefits everybody you probably won't infect if you get exposed to the virus. We have no evidence of this, nor do we have any reason to believe elevated antibody levels will continue indefinitely. Antibodies from the third shot will wane, just as the antibodies from the second shot waned, and antibodies always wane after antigen exposure. It's how our immune systems work.

timr 5y ago

> I'll take a 90% lower mortality rate any day. Really? Any day? Read the part you quoted carefully: the death rate in the control group is 3 per 100,000. And if you read the rest of the paper, you'll see that the study population was entirely over age 50. Remember that the risk of death from Covid-19 goes up exponentially with age -- something like 90% of all fatalities are over age 50 [1]. If you're in the typical HN demographic (<30 yo), your risk of mortality from Covid-19 is much lower than what is reported for baseline here. I want to put this in perspective. Per The Book of Risks (chapter 8; annual risks) [2], your overall chance of dying in a typical year is 1 in 115 (~870 per 100,000) Your chance of being murdered is 1 in 11,000 (9 per 100,000). The chance you'll die of an accident is 1 in 2,900 (34 per 100,000). From a fall: 1 in 20,000 (5 per 100,000). By getting hit by a car while walking: 1 in 40,000 (2.5 per 100,000). In other words, your all-ages chance of dying from Covid-19 after two doses is somewhere between your annual chance of dying from a fall, and dying after being hit by a car -- and it's much lower than that if you're under age 50! Divide that number by ten, and you're in the realm of risks that any sane person wouldn't even consider: the annual chance of dying by freezing, for example (1 in 3,000,000). Point being: dividing a very small number by 10 is indeed a 90% risk reduction, but you have to weigh it against the costs very carefully. There are tons of reasons why I wouldn't take a 90% relative risk reduction, if the baseline risk were quite small (as it is here). [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254488/us-share-of-total-covid-deaths-by-age-group/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254488/us-share-of-tota... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Book-Risks-Fascinating-Facts-Chances/dp/0471310344 https://www.amazon.com/Book-Risks-Fascinating-Facts-Chances/...

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Yes. Any day, and twice on Sunday. If 90% of COVID deaths in the US could have been prevented (in fact, many could have been)[0][1], that cuts this whole thing down to a very bad flu season, comparable to the 1957 flu pandemic [3]. Would you rather not cut your risk by 90%? Edit: Incidentally, I have been hit by cars while walking 3 times. No injuries, luckily, since they were very low speed impacts. Why are you seemingly advocating against something (getting a booster shot) that's also extremely unlikely to harm you? --- [0]: https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/coronavirus/new-study-finds-that-40-of-covid-19-deaths-could-have-been-prevented https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/coronavirus/n... [1]: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/covid-19-continues-to-be-a-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s/ https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/covid-1... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957%E2%80%931958_influenza_pandemic#By_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957%E2%80%931958_influenza_pa...
- timr 5y ago
  > Would you rather not cut your risk by 90%? Depends entirely on the cost vs. the benefit. As I said, a 90% relative reduction is meaningless without knowledge of the baseline risk. And once you know the baseline risk, you can do the math instead of just reacting emotionally.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Well, let's see: cost, $0, and a few minutes. Extremely tiny risk of serious side effects. Benefit... better immune response to the nasty virus going around. Let's also not forget this doesn't benefit just you; it benefits everybody you probably won't infect if you get exposed to the virus. No emotion involved, at least not from me. Seems clear enough to me. You seem to be the one having an emotional response here.
    - timr 5y ago
      > Extremely tiny risk of serious side effects. How tiny? It matters. Your risk of a bad outcome from Covid-19 is extremely tiny. (Also, by the way: the costs are greater than what you pay for the shot. Miss a day of work? Spend a day in bed? That's a cost.) > it benefits everybody you probably won't infect if you get exposed to the virus. We have no evidence of this, nor do we have any reason to believe elevated antibody levels will continue indefinitely. Antibodies from the third shot will wane, just as the antibodies from the second shot waned, and antibodies always wane after antigen exposure. It's how our immune systems work.