3 ms·
The second article also discusses the problem of the 2 week delay period and links to the study appendix - different data and argument. Hospitalization is unfo
by native_samples 5y ago
The second article also discusses the problem of the 2 week delay period and links to the study appendix - different data and argument.
Hospitalization is unfortunately also hopelessly confounded by the same factors - if you don't vaccinate people who are already dying then they are much more likely to be or end up in hospital - but then additional problems too. Again, RCT data didn't prove any effects on hospitalization, that just wasn't an end point they cared about.
Why not? Well, partly because it's extremely subjective. To be hospitalized for a disease like COVID you must either catch it in hospital, or choose to go. COVID isn't a sudden collapse like a heart attack or stroke where bystanders may rush you to hospital in an ambulance. It's a steady degradation and at some point someone has to call a doctor or emergency number and say, I think I need to go to the hospital. Hospitals can turn you away if your COVID isn't serious enough but in many places they have monetary incentives not to do so, and that's ignoring all the psychological issues - if you have some spare beds giving someone who's terrified some attention may be better than turning them away.
In normal/sane times this wouldn't really matter, as we can hope that people are roughly OK at judging whether they need this or not, and hospitals wouldn't spend resources on cases that aren't really needing to be there. But with COVID, years of relentless misinformation from newspapers and authority figures have totally destroyed people's understanding of the severity of the disease. US adults over-estimate the risk of hospitalization if you're unvaccinated by orders of magnitude:
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimates-covid-hospitalization-risk.aspx https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimat...
"The results show that most Americans overstate the risk of hospitalization for both groups: 92% overstate the risk that unvaccinated people will be hospitalized, and 62% overstate the risk for vaccinated people .... For unvaccinated hospitalization risk, 2% of Democrats responded correctly, compared with 16% of Republicans. In fact, 41% of Democrats replied that at least 50% of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized due to COVID-19."
41% of left leaning voters think HALF of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized for COVID! The true number is less than 1%. That's an astonishing stat. I suspect these polls aren't representative and the true numbers are better than this but even so, they are indicative of the problem.
What happens if you trust the media and government so much that you're totally convinced testing positive for COVID = required hospital visit, and then those same authority figures tell you that vaccines will "protect" you from hospitalization? Well, you're much less likely to go, even in situations where previously you would have gone straight to the ER and demanded attention. And that's fine, they'll recover on their own as they almost certainly would have done anyway, and they'll say "thank god I was vaccinated otherwise it would have been much worse".
This is the sort of confounder a rigorous trial would seek to control for, but we don't have any useful trials. The vaccine trials were complete failures: for the only end point they targeted, they reported 95% effectiveness, which started dwindling to near or even below zero in the months after the trial period ended. No usefully accurate information was provided by them, which is shocking.
- icoder 5y agoSo vaccines are bad because Americans overestimate risks due to trusting media and government too much (and those apparently misusing that trust) and therefore don't go to the hospital (and apparently surviving at home instead of needing to be brought into a coma at the IC, because that's only for the hospital's profit) which confounds the numbers that were missing in the original trials?
- native_samples 5y agoNearly - have you reversed a part of the argument there? The argument is that people over-estimate the risk of COVID if unvaccinated, meaning they do go to hospital. You said "therefore don't go". Lots of marginal cases will end up going to hospital, right up until those people get vaccinated at which point the publicity campaign switches direction and tries to convince people with COVID to stay home because they're protected. Which indeed would hopelessly confound any attempt to determine true effects on hospitalization from simple rate data, and the trials simply didn't measure this at all. In fact the study paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 doesn't even contain the word hospital anywhere in it. It's not just Americans by the way. There's a French survey that shows something similar with respect to estimated IFR. Actual value between 0.1% and 0.3% depending on study, estimated value average of 14%. The misinformation campaign has been global. I'm not saying something as simple as "vaccines are bad" - although COVID vaccines specifically could well be for younger age ranges, where disease risk is so low that it would require an astonishingly weak sauce to avoid tipping the cost/benefit balance negative. But the actual argument is that we don't really know any of these things with the level of rigor that should be required for a forced global vaccination programme. Literally all the data is either wrong or hopelessly confounded, and scientists are not only mostly ignoring these problems but doubling down on them by insisting that analyses of side effect databases are illegitimate because they're "correlational" (which is a bogus argument but apparently enough to repeatedly get such papers retracted).