4 ms·

Booster jab gives 90% Covid protection, study says

4 points by version_five 5y ago

chiefalchemist 5y ago
> A second CDC study, also released on Friday, examined data from 25 state and local health departments and found that people with booster shots are significantly less likely to get infected with Omicron. It's worth pointing out, as presented, this is correlation. There could be something particular about the boosted (e.g., they're older and/or higher risk, perhaps still wear a mask, and/or limit their going out / exposure). Again, as presented, that stat alone doesn't prove (in a definitive science sort of way) the jab __prevents__ Omicron. It's correlation.
- version_five 5y ago
  Also, its "protection" or "effective against", it's not about preventing from what I can see, it's about "preventing hospitalization". I'd really like to see the calculation, to be clear on what is actually claimed in the 90%. If it actually prevented 90% of people from getting covid, we should have been able to move on long ago.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    Yes, more or less my point. All things being unequal, the only way to assign numbers is to know X of Group 2 Jabs were exposed to and contracted vs Y of Group 3 Jab were exposed to and contracted... As it is, it's less odds and more "on average." Sadly, we're still getting bad data and bad interpretation of that data two years into this. At this point, sad to say, it feels intentional. Two years is quite a bit of negligence.
CRConrad 5y ago
Still not in the "one percent", but at least I'm in the ten!
GuB-42 5y ago
... against hospitalization It looks to me like we are moving the goalposts here. When not specified, "x% effective" used to mean "effective against contamination", now it means "effective against severe covid". I think it is important to get as many people vaccinated as possible, but please, don't make things more confusing than they already are. It will only fuel conspiracy theories and give arguments to the antivax.

4 ms·

Booster jab gives 90% Covid protection, study says

4 points by version_five 5y ago

chiefalchemist 5y ago
> A second CDC study, also released on Friday, examined data from 25 state and local health departments and found that people with booster shots are significantly less likely to get infected with Omicron. It's worth pointing out, as presented, this is correlation. There could be something particular about the boosted (e.g., they're older and/or higher risk, perhaps still wear a mask, and/or limit their going out / exposure). Again, as presented, that stat alone doesn't prove (in a definitive science sort of way) the jab __prevents__ Omicron. It's correlation.
- version_five 5y ago
  Also, its "protection" or "effective against", it's not about preventing from what I can see, it's about "preventing hospitalization". I'd really like to see the calculation, to be clear on what is actually claimed in the 90%. If it actually prevented 90% of people from getting covid, we should have been able to move on long ago.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    Yes, more or less my point. All things being unequal, the only way to assign numbers is to know X of Group 2 Jabs were exposed to and contracted vs Y of Group 3 Jab were exposed to and contracted... As it is, it's less odds and more "on average." Sadly, we're still getting bad data and bad interpretation of that data two years into this. At this point, sad to say, it feels intentional. Two years is quite a bit of negligence.
CRConrad 5y ago
Still not in the "one percent", but at least I'm in the ten!
GuB-42 5y ago
... against hospitalization It looks to me like we are moving the goalposts here. When not specified, "x% effective" used to mean "effective against contamination", now it means "effective against severe covid". I think it is important to get as many people vaccinated as possible, but please, don't make things more confusing than they already are. It will only fuel conspiracy theories and give arguments to the antivax.