4 ms·

For instance 79% of the people >18yo who tested positive in December were vaccinated. And that's pretty much the % of people over 18 that are vaccinated in the

by cm2187 5y ago

For instance 79% of the people >18yo who tested positive in December were vaccinated. And that's pretty much the % of people over 18 that are vaccinated in the UK. You get pretty much the same result for each age tranche: Positive of which % pos test % population Age Tests vaxed vaccinated vaccinated <18 395,335 57,284 14% 35% 18-29 257,526 181,705 71% 60% 30-39 254,435 193,623 76% 65% 40-49 230,670 195,908 85% 77% 50-59 147,033 129,440 88% 85% 60-69 58,233 51,037 88% 90% 70-79 18,858 16,263 86% 95% >80 9,067 7,658 84% 95% Total > 18 975,822 775,634 79% p36: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043608/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_51.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... You had the same outcome in November, i.e. pre-Omicron.

majormajor 5y ago
Ah, yes. That's not a very useful stat compared to something like case-rate-per-100K since the denominator could be all over the map. What's the case rate per 100K at the population level there? Edit: actually, didn't find exactly that table, but did find a section in the doc you link, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043608/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_51.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/..., on page 14, that shows vaccine effectiveness remains against symptomatic disease as a result of a study against delta and omicron both. But I would love to see the overall case rate to know about asymptomatic disease too.
- cm2187 5y ago
  Not sure what you mean by denominator? The denominator for vaxed positive cases is all positive cases. The denominator for vaxed in the population is total population (within the age range). The % per 100k is available p40 of the same pdf. But I find that much harder to read given that the size of the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations vastly differ.
  - majormajor 5y ago
    In "percent vaxxed among positive tests" you're only looking at those who got tested and were positive at a snapshot in time. At the very least, you also need to include all the people who tested negative. You complain that the size of the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations are vastly different but then use numbers where you look at just positive tests, ignoring counts or negative counts. That gives you numbers with even more potential sources for skew! The table on page 40 is consistent with US data, where case rates at the population. It says to read in conjunction with pages 32 to 34, which basically says "stats won't be as accurate as formal assessment of vaccine effectiveness, please see the formal data." The formal data suggests effectiveness against transmission. The raw cases-per-100k numbers agree. Yet you latch onto a different number - another one that the report says isn't authoritative for those purposes either - to claim the data shows ineffectiveness! That seems backward.

by cm2187 5y ago

majormajor 5y ago

Ah, yes. That's not a very useful stat compared to something like case-rate-per-100K since the denominator could be all over the map. What's the case rate per 100K at the population level there? Edit: actually, didn't find exactly that table, but did find a section in the doc you link, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043608/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_51.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/..., on page 14, that shows vaccine effectiveness remains against symptomatic disease as a result of a study against delta and omicron both. But I would love to see the overall case rate to know about asymptomatic disease too.

cm2187 5y ago
Not sure what you mean by denominator? The denominator for vaxed positive cases is all positive cases. The denominator for vaxed in the population is total population (within the age range). The % per 100k is available p40 of the same pdf. But I find that much harder to read given that the size of the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations vastly differ.
- majormajor 5y ago
  In "percent vaxxed among positive tests" you're only looking at those who got tested and were positive at a snapshot in time. At the very least, you also need to include all the people who tested negative. You complain that the size of the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations are vastly different but then use numbers where you look at just positive tests, ignoring counts or negative counts. That gives you numbers with even more potential sources for skew! The table on page 40 is consistent with US data, where case rates at the population. It says to read in conjunction with pages 32 to 34, which basically says "stats won't be as accurate as formal assessment of vaccine effectiveness, please see the formal data." The formal data suggests effectiveness against transmission. The raw cases-per-100k numbers agree. Yet you latch onto a different number - another one that the report says isn't authoritative for those purposes either - to claim the data shows ineffectiveness! That seems backward.