3 ms·

https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveyearlyanalysisofcharacteristicsassociatedwiththeomicronvariantamongcovid19infec

https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveyearlyanalysisofcharacteristicsassociatedwiththeomicronvariantamongcovid19infectionsuk20december2021 https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/coronavirus... "those who have received three doses of a vaccine and test positive for COVID-19 are more likely to be infected with infections compatible with the Omicron variant compared with those who are unvaccinated"

mhh__ 5y ago
And when was it censored? I note that it says "It is too early to draw conclusions from our data on the effectiveness of vaccines against the Omicron variant." also. Does it mean more likely to get infected (given the same exposure) or more likely to be infected? The difference is quite important.
thanatosmin 5y ago
“Note that this is the probability of an infection being Omicron given a person is infected, so it doesn’t tell us how likely a person is to test positive in the first place.”
manfredzab 5y ago
You’re misinterpreting (unintentionally or otherwise) this statement. All this is saying is that P(Omicron variant | positive test AND 3x vaccine) > P(Omicron variant | positive test AND no vaccine). In no way this is implying P(Getting Omicron | 3x vaccine) > P(Getting Omicron | no vaccine).
jeffesp 5y ago
You cut the sentence in the middle: "though individuals who had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine continued to be less likely to test positive for COVID-19, regardless of variant." Which does not mean the unvaccinated are more likely to get omicron like you originally claimed. Just that if they are infected it is more likely to be omicron. Which means the vaccine is less effective against omicron than other variants, which we already know.
zach_miller 5y ago
Feels like that’s more a statement about the efficacy of the vaccine against Delta vs Omicron. “…and test positive for COVID-19…” already narrows the groups down to only the positive cases, it’s not a statement about those groups’ relative sizes.
taeric 5y ago
That... Is a different statement. It says that they are more likely to have a specific variant, given that they got infected. It did not say they are more likely to get infected. Right?
peteradio 5y ago
When you are given priors you have to be very careful about what answer you are getting actually says. It says there are different viral profile in one group vs the other when we explicitly select for people with virus. Doesn't really tell us the detail involved of actually getting the virus.
donaldihunter 5y ago
That para makes 2 more important points: "Vaccination status: those who have received three doses of a vaccine and test positive for COVID-19 are more likely to be infected with infections compatible with the Omicron variant compared with those who are unvaccinated, though individuals who had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine continued to be less likely to test positive for COVID-19, regardless of variant. It is too early to draw conclusions from our data on the effectiveness of vaccines against the Omicron variant."

mhh__ 5y ago

And when was it censored? I note that it says "It is too early to draw conclusions from our data on the effectiveness of vaccines against the Omicron variant." also. Does it mean more likely to get infected (given the same exposure) or more likely to be infected? The difference is quite important.

thanatosmin 5y ago

“Note that this is the probability of an infection being Omicron given a person is infected, so it doesn’t tell us how likely a person is to test positive in the first place.”

manfredzab 5y ago

You’re misinterpreting (unintentionally or otherwise) this statement. All this is saying is that P(Omicron variant | positive test AND 3x vaccine) > P(Omicron variant | positive test AND no vaccine). In no way this is implying P(Getting Omicron | 3x vaccine) > P(Getting Omicron | no vaccine).

jeffesp 5y ago

You cut the sentence in the middle: "though individuals who had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine continued to be less likely to test positive for COVID-19, regardless of variant." Which does not mean the unvaccinated are more likely to get omicron like you originally claimed. Just that if they are infected it is more likely to be omicron. Which means the vaccine is less effective against omicron than other variants, which we already know.

zach_miller 5y ago

Feels like that’s more a statement about the efficacy of the vaccine against Delta vs Omicron. “…and test positive for COVID-19…” already narrows the groups down to only the positive cases, it’s not a statement about those groups’ relative sizes.

taeric 5y ago

That... Is a different statement. It says that they are more likely to have a specific variant, given that they got infected. It did not say they are more likely to get infected. Right?

peteradio 5y ago

When you are given priors you have to be very careful about what answer you are getting actually says. It says there are different viral profile in one group vs the other when we explicitly select for people with virus. Doesn't really tell us the detail involved of actually getting the virus.

donaldihunter 5y ago

That para makes 2 more important points: "Vaccination status: those who have received three doses of a vaccine and test positive for COVID-19 are more likely to be infected with infections compatible with the Omicron variant compared with those who are unvaccinated, though individuals who had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine continued to be less likely to test positive for COVID-19, regardless of variant. It is too early to draw conclusions from our data on the effectiveness of vaccines against the Omicron variant."