10 ms·

> why are they so adamant to vaccinate those with prior infection Because the data shows they don't matter. This is the same thing as deaths due to covid vs.

> why are they so adamant to vaccinate those with prior infection Because the data shows they don't matter. This is the same thing as deaths due to covid vs. deaths while positive to covid. Sure some people might have been miscounted as covid deaths but actually died due to cancer/car accident/whatever. Despite this the excess deaths over the past two years is much higher than the number of covid deaths; thus showing that miscounts must be a small minority which, in any case, is absolutely dwarfed by excess deaths not counted as covid deaths. It might even grow a little as testing improves but it still remains mostly irrelevant. Likewise it may be that some people do not need a vaccination. However, we have a 30/70 split in number of covid hospitalizations, with 30 being vaccinated people, in countries where the split in the normal population is 90/10. This means that despite some unvaccinated people having had prior infection the vaccine reduces hospitalizations by 20x. Given this data the most effective strategy is to just vaccinate everyone without what is effectively a pointless distinction. As the number of unvaccinated but protected people will grow (through a combination of more infections, more vaccinations and more deaths), the proportion above will revert to 90/10 and unvaccinated people will not be an issue anymore. For now however analyzing the proportion of naturally immune people among the unvaccinated is, again, mostly irrelevant.

nu11ptr 5y ago
My point is that it is NOT a pointless distinction, and there is a huge discrepancy between "unvaccinated - prior infection" and "unvaccinated - no infection" cohorts. Countries that track prior infection (there are a few) show this in their data, and if you separate them you will see the "unvaxxed - no infection" get worse and the other much better. If the subject matter were something less politically polarizing I'm suggesting this would be a split group in everyone's data.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  The only people who make getting vaccinated a political matter are those who refuse to get vaccinated. If you look at the data (and not just the convenient headlines) “unvaccinated, prior infection” have a lot higher chance of reinfection and a lot higher chance of a severe outcome than vaccinated. Sure it is still better to be “unvaccinated, prior infection” vs “unvaccinated, no prior infection” but not the same order of magnitude as “vaccinated and boosted”. Roughly speaking this is the difference between your risk of driving with no seat belt and no air bags (unvaccinated), no seat belt and no air bags but with a bicycle helmet (prior infection), seatbelt (vaccinated), and seatbelt and airbags (vaccinated and boosted).
  - JPKab 5y ago
    > Roughly speaking this is the difference between your risk of driving with no seat belt and no air bags (unvaccinated), no seat belt and no air bags but with a bicycle helmet (prior infection), seatbelt (vaccinated), and seatbelt and airbags (vaccinated and boosted). It's absolutely not the same delta there. Not even close. The relative risk and absolute risk are completely different in magnitude, and unvaccinated cohorts are concentrated in younger, healthier populations with a minimal level of risk. The most distinguishing characteristic of COVID is it's age-risk gradient. There is LITERALLY a 1000X delta in IFR between the youngest and oldest demographics. The fact that the vaccine policies don't take this into account has resulted in the greatest erosion in trust of public health authorities in history. Your analogy doesn't even take this into account, which further demonstrates the shallow aspect of it.
    - jkhdigital 5y ago
      > There is LITERALLY a 1000X delta in IFR between the youngest and oldest demographics. This is the point that I can’t seem to express eloquently enough to overcome the nonstop torrent of poorly calibrated advice from the authorities. I don’t have time to pore over the data, but last time I checked the annualized death totals for children (17 and under) were approximately equal to the 2019 deaths from influenza for that age group. When the marginal benefit of vaccination gets that low, you do have to start asking whether the side effects are worth it—trading a 0.01% risk of myocarditis for a 2% risk of death is clearly worth it, but can you say the same when the risk of death is on the same order of magnitude as the side effects? (edit: numbers are hand-wavy, not trying to make an authoritative point)
      - jjeaff 5y ago
        Vaccine side effects are less frequent and less severe that. Unvaccinated COVID side effects in all age cohorts. By a significant margin. Myocarditis in particular is 8x more likely to occur with COVID vs the vaccine. So, while an argument could be made that the risk of adverse reaction or death from COVID is too small to matter one way or the other in young people, it is not correct to say that the vaccine is more risky. There is one exception I have seen in some data that myocarditis risk was roughly equal or slightly higher for young men of a specific age group who received the second dose of the moderna vaccine. But one could of course avoid that particular vaccine and still be better of vaccinated because that of course is only for myocarditis and the absolute risk is very tiny.
dahfizz 5y ago
> Because the data shows they don't matter. Source? Because the CDC says otherwise. > In the first full week of October, vaccinated New Yorkers with a prior Covid-19 case were 19.8 times less likely to catch the virus than their unvaccinated and uninfected peers, whereas people who were unvaccinated but previously infected were 14.7 times less likely, and vaccinated but uninfected New Yorkers were just 4.5 times less likely. In other words, natural immunity alone can be up to 5X more protective than the vaccine alone, according to the CDC. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-covid-infection-offered-more-protection-against-delta-than-vaccines---but-both-together-did-best/?sh=140821063d04 https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-c...
- animal_spirits 5y ago
  I think what they are suggesting is that natural immunity + vaccine is also more protective than just natural immunity
  - diamondo25 5y ago
    But natural immunity doesn't work if you die or end up having severe loss of health, so vaccine + natural immunity would be best way.
    - walterbell 5y ago
      CDC said last October that 146 million people (~40%) in the US have already recovered from Covid. There are also interventions other than vaccines, e.g. early treatment, https://c19early.com https://c19early.com
  - keithnz 5y ago
    yes, vaccine + natural immunity gives you super immunity by a large factor, they also found that it doesn't matter if you get the virus, then get vaccinated, or get vaccinated then get the virus, you'll end up with super immunity.
    - 5y ago
ipaddr 5y ago
Data has been showing 80/20 vaxed/non vaxed hospitalizations for this new variant. How does that change your worldview?
- mlac 5y ago
  Source? That might mean we’re approaching herd immunity and critical mass for vaccinated people in the population, which would be fantastic.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data#casesByVaccinationStatus https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data#casesByVaccinationStatus
    - bonzini 5y ago
      The same source gives roughly 60/40 for hospitalizations and 50/50 for ICU, so the more severe the symptoms the more vaccinations help.
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        The ICU stat is tricky. They classify anyone who they don't know their vax status as non-vaxxed. Many people who come into the ICU can't speak, fill out paperwork. They are classified as non-vaxxed. By the time they recover enough to share their status they get transferred out of the ICU. Probably the most misleading stat of them all.
        bonzini 5y ago
        If somebody comes in the ICU with COVID symptoms, it's extremely likely that they were hospitalized earlier and thus their vaccination status is known. If somebody comes in the ICU without non-COVID symptoms, they aren't in the statistic, in other words you need to make the probability of "unknown status" conditional on being in the ICU for COVID.
timr 5y ago
> However, we have a 30/70 split in number of covid hospitalizations, with 30 being vaccinated people, in countries where the split in the normal population is 90/10. This means that despite some unvaccinated people having had prior infection the vaccine reduces hospitalizations by 20x. Given this data the most effective strategy is to just vaccinate everyone without what is effectively a pointless distinction No. This is wrong. As the parent noted, the CDC's own data shows that prior infection provides robust protection against severe disease. Both without vaccination: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm#F1_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm#F1_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm As well as a substantial additional benefit after vaccination: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7101a4.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7101a4.htm > Previous COVID-19 illness was associated with reduced odds of severe outcomes (aOR = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.09–0.84). Moreover, the CDC estimates that over 150M people in the US (out of a country of 330M) have had Covid: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd... That's 45% of the US population (before Omicron). There's no rational way to characterize this as insignificant.
- bonzini 5y ago
  I did not say that prior infection does not reduce severe outcome. It does but _it does not change the fact_ that the severe outcomes are much more rare among vaccinated people. This means that there are still too few people with prior infection, for this to be an important factor in policy making. It will be once the proportion of unvaccinated people in hospitals starts to resemble the proportion in the general population.
  - JPKab 5y ago
    The severe outcomes are even more rare amongst prior-infected, unvaccinated people. I suggest you look up seroprevalence surveys. The bulk of COVID infections (barring mandatory and regular testing being extant in a given locality) go undetected, due to the mild symptoms in the vast majority of the population. The seroprevalence surveys have shown this since May 2020.
JPKab 5y ago
The assumption that excess deaths can be attributed to any single cause is simply not based on data and/or science. What is the age breakdown of these excess deaths? If the distribution doesn't mirror the age distribution of known COVID deaths, that's an immediate indicator that it's factoring in multiple sources. Drug overdoses, attempted suicides and actual suicides are way up, for example. Drug abuse is way up. Child abuse is way up. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm simply saying that you can't know that you are right without a careful analysis of the data. It should be noted that the "excess deaths are way up" is also used as a tool of people claiming that the vaccines are killing people as well. Again, I want to emphasize, I don't know the detailed data behind the excess deaths. COVID is certainly one factor, but what percentage does it constitute? I'm not claiming I know, but you are. That's the difference. You are also ignoring the studies out of Israel (sample size of 2.5 million people), Qatar (sample size of 400K people), the recent CDC study in other replies to your comment, etc. It's a long list of studies that show that prior infection is a superior, more durable form of immunity to Delta than vaccine-only populations. Additionally, it's rather absurd to use hospitalizations as a metric for the general population. I'm sure you are extremely aware that the bulk of unvaccinated people getting hospitalized are not young or healthy. "Some unvaccinated people" is also a statement ignoring the shocking prevalence of prior infection in seroprevalence studies, which isn't really shocking when considering a respiratory virus that has an R0 that has been at minimum 3 in the beginning with the original variant, and is now 6-7 with omicron. The data has changed, but many people's opinions have remained fixed. I don't understand what motivates this, but it's become tiresome as it continues to drive policies that are intuitively foolish and violate centuries of immunological knowledge.
- MatteoFrigo 5y ago
  In case you haven't seen it before, https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps has graphs of excess data for most of Europe (plus Israel) by age groups. I find it a great resource to cross-check the misinformation of the mainstream media. For example, I challenge anybody to look at the 0-14 and 14-44 graphs and tell me when covid actually occurred. Note that excess is not defined as a deviation from a typical year, but as a deviation from a typical year when no diseases are circulating. The goal of the euromomo website is to detect things like flu outbreaks, so the number of excess deaths is usually greater than 0, capturing the flu, heat waves, and presumably other disasters.
PickledHotdog 5y ago
>died due to cancer/car accident The WHO definition of a covid death means that they can only be counted as covid deaths if there's a clinical link between cause of death and covid. Ergo, cancer and car accident victims with covid wouldn't be counted. I suppose it depends on how your country defines it and if it follows WHO guidelines
- bonzini 5y ago
  Correct, that's why I characterized them as miscounts. There are popular theories about thousands of such miscounts happening to get more money from the government, but it makes no sense for them to be more than a small minority of mistakes.
  - salawat 5y ago
    >There are popular theories about thousands of such miscounts happening to get more money from the government, but it makes no sense for them to be more than a small minority of mistakes. Show me profit motive, and I'll show you an audit worth doing. If you've not parsed and checked that data, I'd recommend not passing judgement on it. The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
- nradov 5y ago
  Earlier in the pandemic many public health agencies over counted COVID-19 deaths by including everyone who had tested positive regardless of the actual cause of death. Most agencies have now corrected those numbers to better align with WHO and CDC guidelines so current metrics are generally more accurate. For example Santa Clara County had to adjust the death count down by 22%. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/santa-clara-countys-covid-19-death-toll-drops-by-505-after-data-change/2585739/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/santa-clara-countys-co...
sharken 5y ago
Saying that some people might have been miscounted is pushing an agenda that is not pro science I'd say. In London this number has been as high as 40%, so it's highly relevant to present accurate numbers. But the only place science has won is in producing a good vaccine, the rest has been a shit show of crazy decisions and a hunt for those who didn't want to get vaccinated right away. I sincerely hope sanity returns.
chiefalchemist 5y ago
> However, we have a 30/70 split in number of covid hospitalizations, with 30 being vaccinated people, in countries where the split in Is that vaccinated? Fully-vaccinated? Or "up to date" (i.e., whatever round of boosters are being pushed)? The point is, the narrative has pushed the importance of "the science". Yet so much is actually not consistent with science / scientific method at all. Ffs, they can't even get the definitions and language right. These aren't occasional lapses. They're non-stop. I hear what you're saying. However, it still doesn't address the negligence. After two yrs it's not incompotence, is it? Still? ". Given this data the most effective strategy is to just vaccinate everyone without what is effectively a pointless distinction." So...we don't need science. Just everyone bend over and do what the authorities say, when they say, and how they say it? That's it? Kids? New borns? And everyone else on the low side of risk? Just because? You can't have your science and dismiss it too.
upsidesinclude 5y ago

nu11ptr 5y ago

My point is that it is NOT a pointless distinction, and there is a huge discrepancy between "unvaccinated - prior infection" and "unvaccinated - no infection" cohorts. Countries that track prior infection (there are a few) show this in their data, and if you separate them you will see the "unvaxxed - no infection" get worse and the other much better. If the subject matter were something less politically polarizing I'm suggesting this would be a split group in everyone's data.

IgorPartola 5y ago
The only people who make getting vaccinated a political matter are those who refuse to get vaccinated. If you look at the data (and not just the convenient headlines) “unvaccinated, prior infection” have a lot higher chance of reinfection and a lot higher chance of a severe outcome than vaccinated. Sure it is still better to be “unvaccinated, prior infection” vs “unvaccinated, no prior infection” but not the same order of magnitude as “vaccinated and boosted”. Roughly speaking this is the difference between your risk of driving with no seat belt and no air bags (unvaccinated), no seat belt and no air bags but with a bicycle helmet (prior infection), seatbelt (vaccinated), and seatbelt and airbags (vaccinated and boosted).
- JPKab 5y ago
  > Roughly speaking this is the difference between your risk of driving with no seat belt and no air bags (unvaccinated), no seat belt and no air bags but with a bicycle helmet (prior infection), seatbelt (vaccinated), and seatbelt and airbags (vaccinated and boosted). It's absolutely not the same delta there. Not even close. The relative risk and absolute risk are completely different in magnitude, and unvaccinated cohorts are concentrated in younger, healthier populations with a minimal level of risk. The most distinguishing characteristic of COVID is it's age-risk gradient. There is LITERALLY a 1000X delta in IFR between the youngest and oldest demographics. The fact that the vaccine policies don't take this into account has resulted in the greatest erosion in trust of public health authorities in history. Your analogy doesn't even take this into account, which further demonstrates the shallow aspect of it.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    > There is LITERALLY a 1000X delta in IFR between the youngest and oldest demographics. This is the point that I can’t seem to express eloquently enough to overcome the nonstop torrent of poorly calibrated advice from the authorities. I don’t have time to pore over the data, but last time I checked the annualized death totals for children (17 and under) were approximately equal to the 2019 deaths from influenza for that age group. When the marginal benefit of vaccination gets that low, you do have to start asking whether the side effects are worth it—trading a 0.01% risk of myocarditis for a 2% risk of death is clearly worth it, but can you say the same when the risk of death is on the same order of magnitude as the side effects? (edit: numbers are hand-wavy, not trying to make an authoritative point)
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      Vaccine side effects are less frequent and less severe that. Unvaccinated COVID side effects in all age cohorts. By a significant margin. Myocarditis in particular is 8x more likely to occur with COVID vs the vaccine. So, while an argument could be made that the risk of adverse reaction or death from COVID is too small to matter one way or the other in young people, it is not correct to say that the vaccine is more risky. There is one exception I have seen in some data that myocarditis risk was roughly equal or slightly higher for young men of a specific age group who received the second dose of the moderna vaccine. But one could of course avoid that particular vaccine and still be better of vaccinated because that of course is only for myocarditis and the absolute risk is very tiny.

dahfizz 5y ago

> Because the data shows they don't matter. Source? Because the CDC says otherwise. > In the first full week of October, vaccinated New Yorkers with a prior Covid-19 case were 19.8 times less likely to catch the virus than their unvaccinated and uninfected peers, whereas people who were unvaccinated but previously infected were 14.7 times less likely, and vaccinated but uninfected New Yorkers were just 4.5 times less likely. In other words, natural immunity alone can be up to 5X more protective than the vaccine alone, according to the CDC. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-covid-infection-offered-more-protection-against-delta-than-vaccines---but-both-together-did-best/?sh=140821063d04 https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/19/cdc-prior-c...

animal_spirits 5y ago
I think what they are suggesting is that natural immunity + vaccine is also more protective than just natural immunity
- diamondo25 5y ago
  But natural immunity doesn't work if you die or end up having severe loss of health, so vaccine + natural immunity would be best way.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    CDC said last October that 146 million people (~40%) in the US have already recovered from Covid. There are also interventions other than vaccines, e.g. early treatment, https://c19early.com https://c19early.com
- keithnz 5y ago
  yes, vaccine + natural immunity gives you super immunity by a large factor, they also found that it doesn't matter if you get the virus, then get vaccinated, or get vaccinated then get the virus, you'll end up with super immunity.
  - 5y ago

ipaddr 5y ago

Data has been showing 80/20 vaxed/non vaxed hospitalizations for this new variant. How does that change your worldview?

mlac 5y ago
Source? That might mean we’re approaching herd immunity and critical mass for vaccinated people in the population, which would be fantastic.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data#casesByVaccinationStatus https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data#casesByVaccinationStatus
  - bonzini 5y ago
    The same source gives roughly 60/40 for hospitalizations and 50/50 for ICU, so the more severe the symptoms the more vaccinations help.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      The ICU stat is tricky. They classify anyone who they don't know their vax status as non-vaxxed. Many people who come into the ICU can't speak, fill out paperwork. They are classified as non-vaxxed. By the time they recover enough to share their status they get transferred out of the ICU. Probably the most misleading stat of them all.
      - bonzini 5y ago
        If somebody comes in the ICU with COVID symptoms, it's extremely likely that they were hospitalized earlier and thus their vaccination status is known. If somebody comes in the ICU without non-COVID symptoms, they aren't in the statistic, in other words you need to make the probability of "unknown status" conditional on being in the ICU for COVID.

timr 5y ago

> However, we have a 30/70 split in number of covid hospitalizations, with 30 being vaccinated people, in countries where the split in the normal population is 90/10. This means that despite some unvaccinated people having had prior infection the vaccine reduces hospitalizations by 20x. Given this data the most effective strategy is to just vaccinate everyone without what is effectively a pointless distinction No. This is wrong. As the parent noted, the CDC's own data shows that prior infection provides robust protection against severe disease. Both without vaccination: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm#F1_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm#F1_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm As well as a substantial additional benefit after vaccination: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7101a4.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7101a4.htm > Previous COVID-19 illness was associated with reduced odds of severe outcomes (aOR = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.09–0.84). Moreover, the CDC estimates that over 150M people in the US (out of a country of 330M) have had Covid: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd... That's 45% of the US population (before Omicron). There's no rational way to characterize this as insignificant.

bonzini 5y ago
I did not say that prior infection does not reduce severe outcome. It does but _it does not change the fact_ that the severe outcomes are much more rare among vaccinated people. This means that there are still too few people with prior infection, for this to be an important factor in policy making. It will be once the proportion of unvaccinated people in hospitals starts to resemble the proportion in the general population.
- JPKab 5y ago
  The severe outcomes are even more rare amongst prior-infected, unvaccinated people. I suggest you look up seroprevalence surveys. The bulk of COVID infections (barring mandatory and regular testing being extant in a given locality) go undetected, due to the mild symptoms in the vast majority of the population. The seroprevalence surveys have shown this since May 2020.

JPKab 5y ago

The assumption that excess deaths can be attributed to any single cause is simply not based on data and/or science. What is the age breakdown of these excess deaths? If the distribution doesn't mirror the age distribution of known COVID deaths, that's an immediate indicator that it's factoring in multiple sources. Drug overdoses, attempted suicides and actual suicides are way up, for example. Drug abuse is way up. Child abuse is way up. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm simply saying that you can't know that you are right without a careful analysis of the data. It should be noted that the "excess deaths are way up" is also used as a tool of people claiming that the vaccines are killing people as well. Again, I want to emphasize, I don't know the detailed data behind the excess deaths. COVID is certainly one factor, but what percentage does it constitute? I'm not claiming I know, but you are. That's the difference. You are also ignoring the studies out of Israel (sample size of 2.5 million people), Qatar (sample size of 400K people), the recent CDC study in other replies to your comment, etc. It's a long list of studies that show that prior infection is a superior, more durable form of immunity to Delta than vaccine-only populations. Additionally, it's rather absurd to use hospitalizations as a metric for the general population. I'm sure you are extremely aware that the bulk of unvaccinated people getting hospitalized are not young or healthy. "Some unvaccinated people" is also a statement ignoring the shocking prevalence of prior infection in seroprevalence studies, which isn't really shocking when considering a respiratory virus that has an R0 that has been at minimum 3 in the beginning with the original variant, and is now 6-7 with omicron. The data has changed, but many people's opinions have remained fixed. I don't understand what motivates this, but it's become tiresome as it continues to drive policies that are intuitively foolish and violate centuries of immunological knowledge.

MatteoFrigo 5y ago
In case you haven't seen it before, https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps has graphs of excess data for most of Europe (plus Israel) by age groups. I find it a great resource to cross-check the misinformation of the mainstream media. For example, I challenge anybody to look at the 0-14 and 14-44 graphs and tell me when covid actually occurred. Note that excess is not defined as a deviation from a typical year, but as a deviation from a typical year when no diseases are circulating. The goal of the euromomo website is to detect things like flu outbreaks, so the number of excess deaths is usually greater than 0, capturing the flu, heat waves, and presumably other disasters.

PickledHotdog 5y ago

>died due to cancer/car accident The WHO definition of a covid death means that they can only be counted as covid deaths if there's a clinical link between cause of death and covid. Ergo, cancer and car accident victims with covid wouldn't be counted. I suppose it depends on how your country defines it and if it follows WHO guidelines

bonzini 5y ago
Correct, that's why I characterized them as miscounts. There are popular theories about thousands of such miscounts happening to get more money from the government, but it makes no sense for them to be more than a small minority of mistakes.
- salawat 5y ago
  >There are popular theories about thousands of such miscounts happening to get more money from the government, but it makes no sense for them to be more than a small minority of mistakes. Show me profit motive, and I'll show you an audit worth doing. If you've not parsed and checked that data, I'd recommend not passing judgement on it. The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
nradov 5y ago
Earlier in the pandemic many public health agencies over counted COVID-19 deaths by including everyone who had tested positive regardless of the actual cause of death. Most agencies have now corrected those numbers to better align with WHO and CDC guidelines so current metrics are generally more accurate. For example Santa Clara County had to adjust the death count down by 22%. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/santa-clara-countys-covid-19-death-toll-drops-by-505-after-data-change/2585739/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/santa-clara-countys-co...

sharken 5y ago

Saying that some people might have been miscounted is pushing an agenda that is not pro science I'd say. In London this number has been as high as 40%, so it's highly relevant to present accurate numbers. But the only place science has won is in producing a good vaccine, the rest has been a shit show of crazy decisions and a hunt for those who didn't want to get vaccinated right away. I sincerely hope sanity returns.

chiefalchemist 5y ago

> However, we have a 30/70 split in number of covid hospitalizations, with 30 being vaccinated people, in countries where the split in Is that vaccinated? Fully-vaccinated? Or "up to date" (i.e., whatever round of boosters are being pushed)? The point is, the narrative has pushed the importance of "the science". Yet so much is actually not consistent with science / scientific method at all. Ffs, they can't even get the definitions and language right. These aren't occasional lapses. They're non-stop. I hear what you're saying. However, it still doesn't address the negligence. After two yrs it's not incompotence, is it? Still? ". Given this data the most effective strategy is to just vaccinate everyone without what is effectively a pointless distinction." So...we don't need science. Just everyone bend over and do what the authorities say, when they say, and how they say it? That's it? Kids? New borns? And everyone else on the low side of risk? Just because? You can't have your science and dismiss it too.

upsidesinclude 5y ago