5 ms·

https://twitter.com/GibraltarGov/status/1488531136506646544 https://twitter.com/GibraltarGov/status/1488531136506646544 There are 119 new positive cases in Gib

https://twitter.com/GibraltarGov/status/1488531136506646544 https://twitter.com/GibraltarGov/status/1488531136506646544 There are 119 new positive cases in Gibraltar today. 71 are vaccinated and 48 are unvaccinated. If vaccines didn't prevent transmission, one would expect that second number to be 10 or less given the base rate of vaccination.

grujicd 5y ago
The fact that covid managed to get to unvaccinated >1% population suggest that at least some of vax population are carriers, probably asymptomatic. It would be quite hard for these 1% to get infected otherwise. All I sad that vaccines can't stop the spread and it still looks like that. I didn't say they don't reduce it or that they're not beneficial otherwise. Personal anecdote time: I got covid from person who was fully vaccinated 2 months before and didn't have any symptoms. Btw. since this was second time for me, plus with vaccines in the mean time, it was like a very mild cold, one day of temperature and some coughing afterwards. Hm, numbers I'm googling for Gibraltar don't really add up - population 2021: 35.120, fully vaccinated: 40.722. One explanation would be that there are non-rezidents who are working there and got vaxed, while not counted as population.
- empthought 5y ago
  Yes, it's why anyone citing Gibraltar for anything is intellectually dishonest. 15,000 people cross the border every day for work and other reasons. Re: your other point, no vaccine is 100% effective at "stopping" spread. Absolutely no vaccine is 100% effective. There is no qualitative difference between prevention and reduction. If it reduces spread, then by definition some nonzero number of potential infections were prevented.
  - grujicd 5y ago
    I cited Gibraltar as currently the only example of 99% vacc rate. No dishonest thoughts there - I didn't know about 15k people moving every day. Ok, next bigger countries on vacc list: - UAE: population 9.3m, 94% fully, 2400 cases 7-day avg - Portugal: population 10.3m, 89% fully, 55k cases 7-day avg Especially Portugal's cases don't support that 90% vacc stops spread in any meaningful way.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      Even if your thoughts or intents weren't dishonest, it looks like you're just sort of sorting by vax rate and then citing the case rate. Given that you made the mistake with Gibraltar, why should we trust what you're showing us, since it looks like you're cherry picking and misunderstanding stats?
      - grujicd 5y ago
        That's exactly what I'm doing. Isn't that the best way to see how high vaccination affects spread? You're free to present different numbers, but please don't cite anything pre-Omicron since it's not relevant any more. Once more, my case is that current vaccines are not a way to stop spread and therefore vaccinating low-risk population like kids won't protect the elders. I fully support vaccination for self benefits. As I did for myself.
        dekhn 5y ago
        I can't cite anything pre-Omicron since it's not relevant? Anything? Many attributes of the strains share common things (for example both are not retroviruses, can I cite that?) It looks like the mainstream health authorities have shared up to date information on the protection against infection by omicron by vaccines. If that's the case, doesn't it mean that vaccinating kids would protect elders?
      - dudeofea 5y ago
        unlike many public health authorities, grujicd is forming a hypothesis and showing a method to attempt to prove said hypothesis. If you don't like it, you can suggest your own. In this way, a reader can deduce what they believe is the closest truth available rather than it be shouted down at them. The fact that grujicd did not interpret Gibraltar data accurately is, I believe in this case, not a mark against them but a testament to how well they formulated their argument that flaws can be evaluated easily. public health authorities on the other hand will begrudgingly hand over data after months of outcry, as well as change testing criteria and engage in many other methods of purposeful/accidental obfuscation, making their arguments hard to decipher.

grujicd 5y ago

The fact that covid managed to get to unvaccinated >1% population suggest that at least some of vax population are carriers, probably asymptomatic. It would be quite hard for these 1% to get infected otherwise. All I sad that vaccines can't stop the spread and it still looks like that. I didn't say they don't reduce it or that they're not beneficial otherwise. Personal anecdote time: I got covid from person who was fully vaccinated 2 months before and didn't have any symptoms. Btw. since this was second time for me, plus with vaccines in the mean time, it was like a very mild cold, one day of temperature and some coughing afterwards. Hm, numbers I'm googling for Gibraltar don't really add up - population 2021: 35.120, fully vaccinated: 40.722. One explanation would be that there are non-rezidents who are working there and got vaxed, while not counted as population.

empthought 5y ago
Yes, it's why anyone citing Gibraltar for anything is intellectually dishonest. 15,000 people cross the border every day for work and other reasons. Re: your other point, no vaccine is 100% effective at "stopping" spread. Absolutely no vaccine is 100% effective. There is no qualitative difference between prevention and reduction. If it reduces spread, then by definition some nonzero number of potential infections were prevented.
- grujicd 5y ago
  I cited Gibraltar as currently the only example of 99% vacc rate. No dishonest thoughts there - I didn't know about 15k people moving every day. Ok, next bigger countries on vacc list: - UAE: population 9.3m, 94% fully, 2400 cases 7-day avg - Portugal: population 10.3m, 89% fully, 55k cases 7-day avg Especially Portugal's cases don't support that 90% vacc stops spread in any meaningful way.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    Even if your thoughts or intents weren't dishonest, it looks like you're just sort of sorting by vax rate and then citing the case rate. Given that you made the mistake with Gibraltar, why should we trust what you're showing us, since it looks like you're cherry picking and misunderstanding stats?
    - grujicd 5y ago
      That's exactly what I'm doing. Isn't that the best way to see how high vaccination affects spread? You're free to present different numbers, but please don't cite anything pre-Omicron since it's not relevant any more. Once more, my case is that current vaccines are not a way to stop spread and therefore vaccinating low-risk population like kids won't protect the elders. I fully support vaccination for self benefits. As I did for myself.
      - dekhn 5y ago
        I can't cite anything pre-Omicron since it's not relevant? Anything? Many attributes of the strains share common things (for example both are not retroviruses, can I cite that?) It looks like the mainstream health authorities have shared up to date information on the protection against infection by omicron by vaccines. If that's the case, doesn't it mean that vaccinating kids would protect elders?
    - dudeofea 5y ago
      unlike many public health authorities, grujicd is forming a hypothesis and showing a method to attempt to prove said hypothesis. If you don't like it, you can suggest your own. In this way, a reader can deduce what they believe is the closest truth available rather than it be shouted down at them. The fact that grujicd did not interpret Gibraltar data accurately is, I believe in this case, not a mark against them but a testament to how well they formulated their argument that flaws can be evaluated easily. public health authorities on the other hand will begrudgingly hand over data after months of outcry, as well as change testing criteria and engage in many other methods of purposeful/accidental obfuscation, making their arguments hard to decipher.