34 ms·

Yes, this is a prime example of bad data being worse than no data. In the UK, for months now, the rate of infection has been higher among the vaccinated cohort

Yes, this is a prime example of bad data being worse than no data. In the UK, for months now, the rate of infection has been higher among the vaccinated cohort than among the unvaccinated cohort, for most age groups. [1] The antivaxxers are of course pointing to this data and claiming it's evidence that the vaccines make you more likely to get infected, and therefore the tinfoil hats were right all along. But what's actually happening is that the unvaccinated cohort contains a lot of people with natural immunity, who are dragging the numbers down, while the vaccinated cohort doesn't have as many people in it who have had a prior infection. I strongly suspect that if you were you properly separate people by vaccination status and prior infection, you would see that the group of unvaccinated+no prior have a much higher case ratio than any other group. But since we don't have this good data, the antivaxxers are running hog wild with the bad data, drawing the wrong conclusions. [1] https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/t.coddington/viz/UKReportsRiskRatios/UKCharts https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/t.coddington/viz/UKRe...

MatteoFrigo 5y ago
Either way, there is no point in vaccinating the unvaccinated cohort that you mentioned. If you are right, most of them have natural immunity and the data proves that this is already better than the vaccine, so what's the point? They are already doing ok, and vaccination would then move them to the vaccinated column and count their immunity as a success for the vaccine, which is unscientific and dishonest.
- henrikschroder 5y ago
  I agree. Many places around the world have vaccine passes that don't care about natural immunity, which is incredibly unscientific and dishonest. If the case rate is higher among the vaccinated, you're statistically less protected at a venue that checks the vaccine pass. It's counterproductive and ought to be abolished immediately. Vaccine mandates that ignore natural immunity are equally wrong. Many hospitals in the US fired un-vaccinated healthcare personnel without regarding natural immunity, which led to staff shortages, which combined with this Omicron surge means hospitals are so desperate for staff, that many are allowing people to work with an active corona infection, as long as they are vaccinated. We're preferring actually infected people over un-infected, but un-vaccinated people. In a healthcare setting. And the people responsible for this is claiming to "follow science". It's absurd. The only measurement that should matter is your immunity level, regardless of how you acquired it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

MatteoFrigo 5y ago

Either way, there is no point in vaccinating the unvaccinated cohort that you mentioned. If you are right, most of them have natural immunity and the data proves that this is already better than the vaccine, so what's the point? They are already doing ok, and vaccination would then move them to the vaccinated column and count their immunity as a success for the vaccine, which is unscientific and dishonest.

henrikschroder 5y ago
I agree. Many places around the world have vaccine passes that don't care about natural immunity, which is incredibly unscientific and dishonest. If the case rate is higher among the vaccinated, you're statistically less protected at a venue that checks the vaccine pass. It's counterproductive and ought to be abolished immediately. Vaccine mandates that ignore natural immunity are equally wrong. Many hospitals in the US fired un-vaccinated healthcare personnel without regarding natural immunity, which led to staff shortages, which combined with this Omicron surge means hospitals are so desperate for staff, that many are allowing people to work with an active corona infection, as long as they are vaccinated. We're preferring actually infected people over un-infected, but un-vaccinated people. In a healthcare setting. And the people responsible for this is claiming to "follow science". It's absurd. The only measurement that should matter is your immunity level, regardless of how you acquired it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]