4 ms·

A lot of data now shows that double vaccinated are infected with Omikron more often than unvaccinated. I do not know what causes this or what it means, but imag

A lot of data now shows that double vaccinated are infected with Omikron more often than unvaccinated. I do not know what causes this or what it means, but imagine for a moment there were no unvaccinated left: Your vaccine could be arbitrarily harmful with a new variant and you would not be able to tell.

fabian2k 5y ago
That is simply wrong. There is one study that listed negative effectiveness against Omicron for the vaccines. That study did not control for any confounding factors, it simply was not designed to measure this particular thing, it was focused on a different question. There are some strong fundamental reasons why we would not expect the vaccine to be harmful with future variants. And even then we would still be able to detect if it was.
- incrudible 5y ago
  It is not one study, national data from Denmark, UK, Germany and Canada shows that double vaccinated are infected at a higher rate. I am not jumping to conclusions that this means efficacy is negative, because that would require a controlled trial with an unvaccinated group. Do you catch my drift?
  - fabian2k 5y ago
    Please show the data that claims that double vaccinated are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people by Omicron. And raw infection counts are not an answer here as the vaccinated and unvaccinated people are clearly not matched populations you can compare without adjustments.
    - incrudible 5y ago
      > And raw infection counts are not an answer here as the vaccinated and unvaccinated people are clearly not matched populations you can compare... That's the point! That's why we need controlled trials. With an unvaccinated group. You know, the thing that you say we can't have, because it's unethical. > ...without adjustments. As usual, there's an XKCD for that: https://xkcd.com/2560/ https://xkcd.com/2560/
  - bigfudge 5y ago
    There’s no way of running a controlled trial of this sort when 80% of the population have already been vaccinated. You can design better or larger observational studies though.

fabian2k 5y ago

That is simply wrong. There is one study that listed negative effectiveness against Omicron for the vaccines. That study did not control for any confounding factors, it simply was not designed to measure this particular thing, it was focused on a different question. There are some strong fundamental reasons why we would not expect the vaccine to be harmful with future variants. And even then we would still be able to detect if it was.

incrudible 5y ago
It is not one study, national data from Denmark, UK, Germany and Canada shows that double vaccinated are infected at a higher rate. I am not jumping to conclusions that this means efficacy is negative, because that would require a controlled trial with an unvaccinated group. Do you catch my drift?
- fabian2k 5y ago
  Please show the data that claims that double vaccinated are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people by Omicron. And raw infection counts are not an answer here as the vaccinated and unvaccinated people are clearly not matched populations you can compare without adjustments.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    > And raw infection counts are not an answer here as the vaccinated and unvaccinated people are clearly not matched populations you can compare... That's the point! That's why we need controlled trials. With an unvaccinated group. You know, the thing that you say we can't have, because it's unethical. > ...without adjustments. As usual, there's an XKCD for that: https://xkcd.com/2560/ https://xkcd.com/2560/
- bigfudge 5y ago
  There’s no way of running a controlled trial of this sort when 80% of the population have already been vaccinated. You can design better or larger observational studies though.