3 ms·

Here's one example: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/new-data-on-vaccine-efficacy-from https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/new-data-on-vaccine-effic...

• aqme28 5y ago
  This is such incredibly disingenuous statistics. Of course there are more vaxxed with COVID than unvaxxed in a sample of 100,000 people. The vast majority of people are vaccinated! You're comparing two entirely different denominators. This is just sloppy. Edit: Digging through the source data, I found > In the last week from 08 January to 14 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the rate of acute COVID-19 related hospital admissions in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 2.3 to 3.9 times lower than in individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine Your own data is saying the opposite of what you purport it to.
  • headsoup 5y ago
    You didn't read at all. The stats are adjusted for populations within those cohorts.
  • roenxi 5y ago
    It is an appropriate use of statistics regardless. The main thrust of headsoup's argument was that the focus on unvaxxed people isn't helpful because they aren't important in absolute terms. The rate doesn't matter so much in this instance, because most resources would still be spend on vaccinated people. Much like the fact that when I eventually catch COVID the odds are really good that I'm going to get it off someone who is vaccinated. If we hypothetically rounded up all the unvaxxed tomorrow most of the strain on the hospital system faces in Scotland would still be there. Vaccination campaigns can't really change that.