3 ms·

People not getting second shots is not a surprise, anyone who has a bad reaction to the first will do that. The lack of any proper tracking of such reactions me

People not getting second shots is not a surprise, anyone who has a bad reaction to the first will do that. The lack of any proper tracking of such reactions means it has to be inferred from the data, but the explanation there is fairly obvious. W.R.T. taking it down, if public health statistics is open to misinterpretation they should explain why and how to correctly interpret it. Doing that sort of work is the reason we have statistical agencies in the first place. W.R.T. survivorship bias, you seem to be implying that the shape of the graph is expected for any such plot for any vaccine? I don't quite understand what argument you're getting at, sorry. Could you be more explicit? If we zoom in then there's a clear wave shape in which after immunization cases quickly peak at 1000/day about a week after the first shot, then declines again. This is very different to the same data plotted from date of second immunization, where we see a small wave that subsides (same pattern) but then the much bigger one as immunity wears off after about 180 days.

majewsky 5y ago
> People not getting second shots is not a surprise, anyone who has a bad reaction to the first will do that. I don't know any such person, but I know lots of people who had immune reactions to the first shot (like a localized inflammation) and who got the second shot anyway because that's nothing out of the ordinary. Including myself. In fact, most doctors will tell you outright that this is probably going to happen when you get the shot. After all, the vaccine is supposed to elicit an immune reaction. I would personally be more worried if I receive a vaccine and there is no immune reaction at all. > you seem to be implying that the shape of the graph is expected for any such plot for any vaccine For any vaccine with a two-shot schedule, yes. Most people will be getting the second shot after N weeks, so if you plot the incidence of anything across all people who have only received the first shot, you will have the bulk of the distribution between 0 and N weeks because receiving the second shot removes people from the statistical population.
- native_samples 5y ago
  That's true, but there seem to be two problems with explaining the data that way. Firstly, the second shot graph shows the same thing: a clear wave that peaks 10 days after vaccination. Secondly, if that were the cause you'd expect to see a very different almost square wave like graph, with a steady background rate of cases that the shot failed to stop followed by a clear drop as the cohort moves on more or less simultaneously. The data doesn't show that. It seems in Alberta the window between first and second shots is 8 weeks or 56 days. I've been using two weeks as an example but that's too short. https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/topics/Page17389.aspx https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/topics/Page17389.aspx If we select the 56 day period (the graph is zoomable by dragging a region), then we see a large wave that starts near zero, peaks near day 10 and then by day 56 has dissipated. This cannot be the result of people moving into the other cohort because it's all over before anyone becomes eligible for the second shot. W.R.T. reactions - it's interesting how much people's experiences here vary. Almost everyone me and my girlfriend know locally who took the vaccines have had some kind of bad side effect. I suspect there may be several causes of this divergence: 1. Differences in brands used. Moderna is 3x the strength of Pfizer. All data shows Moderna causes way worse side effects and especially after boosters. But, some places use Moderna a lot (like where we live) and others don't. Of the people I know who live in the UK, where AZ was standard, none have reported any side effects. 2. Differences in age groups? Side effects seem to be worse or at least more noticeable amongst the young. 3. Filter bubbles. Our friends know we didn't take the vaccines (so far), so we're "safe" to talk to about side effects and reactions. If you're the sort of person who has publicly proclaimed that you Fucking Love Science!™ - as many people have done - then it seems likely people won't want to mention any effects they did have with you. It's especially easy for that to occur because all the bad reactions we have heard about are the sort of thing that isn't going to be immediately visible if you meet someone: a day off work due to "sickness", disrupted or stopped periods, and in one case sadly a heart attack. That sort of thing is invisible if the affected person doesn't confide.

majewsky 5y ago

> People not getting second shots is not a surprise, anyone who has a bad reaction to the first will do that. I don't know any such person, but I know lots of people who had immune reactions to the first shot (like a localized inflammation) and who got the second shot anyway because that's nothing out of the ordinary. Including myself. In fact, most doctors will tell you outright that this is probably going to happen when you get the shot. After all, the vaccine is supposed to elicit an immune reaction. I would personally be more worried if I receive a vaccine and there is no immune reaction at all. > you seem to be implying that the shape of the graph is expected for any such plot for any vaccine For any vaccine with a two-shot schedule, yes. Most people will be getting the second shot after N weeks, so if you plot the incidence of anything across all people who have only received the first shot, you will have the bulk of the distribution between 0 and N weeks because receiving the second shot removes people from the statistical population.

native_samples 5y ago
That's true, but there seem to be two problems with explaining the data that way. Firstly, the second shot graph shows the same thing: a clear wave that peaks 10 days after vaccination. Secondly, if that were the cause you'd expect to see a very different almost square wave like graph, with a steady background rate of cases that the shot failed to stop followed by a clear drop as the cohort moves on more or less simultaneously. The data doesn't show that. It seems in Alberta the window between first and second shots is 8 weeks or 56 days. I've been using two weeks as an example but that's too short. https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/topics/Page17389.aspx https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/topics/Page17389.aspx If we select the 56 day period (the graph is zoomable by dragging a region), then we see a large wave that starts near zero, peaks near day 10 and then by day 56 has dissipated. This cannot be the result of people moving into the other cohort because it's all over before anyone becomes eligible for the second shot. W.R.T. reactions - it's interesting how much people's experiences here vary. Almost everyone me and my girlfriend know locally who took the vaccines have had some kind of bad side effect. I suspect there may be several causes of this divergence: 1. Differences in brands used. Moderna is 3x the strength of Pfizer. All data shows Moderna causes way worse side effects and especially after boosters. But, some places use Moderna a lot (like where we live) and others don't. Of the people I know who live in the UK, where AZ was standard, none have reported any side effects. 2. Differences in age groups? Side effects seem to be worse or at least more noticeable amongst the young. 3. Filter bubbles. Our friends know we didn't take the vaccines (so far), so we're "safe" to talk to about side effects and reactions. If you're the sort of person who has publicly proclaimed that you Fucking Love Science!™ - as many people have done - then it seems likely people won't want to mention any effects they did have with you. It's especially easy for that to occur because all the bad reactions we have heard about are the sort of thing that isn't going to be immediately visible if you meet someone: a day off work due to "sickness", disrupted or stopped periods, and in one case sadly a heart attack. That sort of thing is invisible if the affected person doesn't confide.