3 ms·

This calculates the NNE which is similar to NNT: The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) is the number of patients you need to treat to prevent one additional bad outc

This calculates the NNE which is similar to NNT: The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) is the number of patients you need to treat to prevent one additional bad outcome (death, stroke, etc.). For example, if a drug has an NNT of 5, it means you have to treat 5 people with the drug to prevent one additional bad outcome. As a general rule of thumb, an NNT of 5 or under for treating a symptomatic condition is usually considered to be acceptable and in some cases even NNTs below 10. https://www.uws.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Number_Needed_to_Treat.pdf https://www.uws.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Number_Needed...

d0mine 5y ago
There are drugs that are taken by millions with NNT in ~100s e.g., statin.
- busymom0 5y ago
  You are missing the point. This NNE is regarding whether mandating vaccine passport at gyms, restaurants has any benefit to reducing transmission.
  - d0mine 5y ago
    I said nothing about NNE. My comment is point out that NNT <10 is too optimistic
joshuamorton 5y ago
I'm so confused by the math here, since the same authors in another paper find that the NNV (number needed to vaccinate) to prevent a transmission is less than 20, but the number needed to exclude is 100x higher. My guess is that you can look at this over a time period: how many places do you go into in a (week/month/year) that you could not if you were unvaccinated. People can be vaccinated, but can be excluded many times. How many people are excluded by a single restaurant per week? At higher prevalence rates, this translates to like an infection prevented per restaurant per day or higher, and at lower rates, its a few per month.
- liamwestray 5y ago
  Time periods kinda messes up these analyses because statistics is hard for a lot of people. "Second, while risk over time is important, people are primarily concerned about the risk of getting infected with SARS- CoV-2 right now, not, for example, over the last 3 months." The authors just kinda brush this aside. Their analyses are focused on singular events such as social gatherings, going to work, transportation, etc. Incase I'm not getting my point across, this is REALLY, REALLY STUPID, and I'd be embarrassed to publish this kind of analysis.. They also focus solely on the psychological harm of exclusion of unvaccinated people (very real consequences of serious mental and economic impacts to these people). Not actual harm of adverse reactions to the vaccines (effectively 0 actual harm), but make comparisons to drugs with considerably more side effects. Not considering cumulative effects of even a single week on transmissibility radically skews their analysis. We don't do this in health and safety when death is on the line for a reason... To put this another way, their analysis compares statins, a drug used to combat a constant exposure to heart-attack and stroke risk (from cholesterol), to a 1-8 hour singular event of exposure of unvaccinated people who may or may not have CoViD. No Doctor I know would prescribe statins if you only had risk of heart-attack or stroke for a 1-8 hour event on a single day.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    > effectively zero harm What? There’s multiple studies showing the risk of a young boy between 16-24 developing myocarditis is higher than their risk of getting hospitalized from Covid. And this myocarditis risk rises based on the interval between first and second dose, rises for each dose, is even higher for Moderna. Also for men under 40, the risks of developing myocarditis from the shots is higher than the risk of myocarditis from Covid. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... Is makes absolutely no sense to mandate the shots for any young person, especially if they are fit and healthy.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      Something like 95% of people who get myocarditis from the vaccine will have it resolve on their own in a month. There have been 8 myocarditis related vaccine deaths total. Further, myocarditis isn't the only risk from covid (not is death), so your overall risk of serious (long term) complications is higher from covid than the vaccine. I'm I man under 30, and got my (Moderna) booster. It was an easy choice.

d0mine 5y ago

There are drugs that are taken by millions with NNT in ~100s e.g., statin.

busymom0 5y ago
You are missing the point. This NNE is regarding whether mandating vaccine passport at gyms, restaurants has any benefit to reducing transmission.
- d0mine 5y ago
  I said nothing about NNE. My comment is point out that NNT <10 is too optimistic

joshuamorton 5y ago

I'm so confused by the math here, since the same authors in another paper find that the NNV (number needed to vaccinate) to prevent a transmission is less than 20, but the number needed to exclude is 100x higher. My guess is that you can look at this over a time period: how many places do you go into in a (week/month/year) that you could not if you were unvaccinated. People can be vaccinated, but can be excluded many times. How many people are excluded by a single restaurant per week? At higher prevalence rates, this translates to like an infection prevented per restaurant per day or higher, and at lower rates, its a few per month.

liamwestray 5y ago
Time periods kinda messes up these analyses because statistics is hard for a lot of people. "Second, while risk over time is important, people are primarily concerned about the risk of getting infected with SARS- CoV-2 right now, not, for example, over the last 3 months." The authors just kinda brush this aside. Their analyses are focused on singular events such as social gatherings, going to work, transportation, etc. Incase I'm not getting my point across, this is REALLY, REALLY STUPID, and I'd be embarrassed to publish this kind of analysis.. They also focus solely on the psychological harm of exclusion of unvaccinated people (very real consequences of serious mental and economic impacts to these people). Not actual harm of adverse reactions to the vaccines (effectively 0 actual harm), but make comparisons to drugs with considerably more side effects. Not considering cumulative effects of even a single week on transmissibility radically skews their analysis. We don't do this in health and safety when death is on the line for a reason... To put this another way, their analysis compares statins, a drug used to combat a constant exposure to heart-attack and stroke risk (from cholesterol), to a 1-8 hour singular event of exposure of unvaccinated people who may or may not have CoViD. No Doctor I know would prescribe statins if you only had risk of heart-attack or stroke for a 1-8 hour event on a single day.
- busymom0 5y ago
  > effectively zero harm What? There’s multiple studies showing the risk of a young boy between 16-24 developing myocarditis is higher than their risk of getting hospitalized from Covid. And this myocarditis risk rises based on the interval between first and second dose, rises for each dose, is even higher for Moderna. Also for men under 40, the risks of developing myocarditis from the shots is higher than the risk of myocarditis from Covid. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... Is makes absolutely no sense to mandate the shots for any young person, especially if they are fit and healthy.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    Something like 95% of people who get myocarditis from the vaccine will have it resolve on their own in a month. There have been 8 myocarditis related vaccine deaths total. Further, myocarditis isn't the only risk from covid (not is death), so your overall risk of serious (long term) complications is higher from covid than the vaccine. I'm I man under 30, and got my (Moderna) booster. It was an easy choice.