4 ms·

Looks like a publish date of 2021 Dec 16, so that would have been pre omicron. Is that relevant anymore? Also, does that study make as strong of a claim as you

Looks like a publish date of 2021 Dec 16, so that would have been pre omicron. Is that relevant anymore? Also, does that study make as strong of a claim as you are here? It says: "were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19" which is good but I don't think necessarily rules out transmission, right? I've asked this before, but why the "just not 100%"? That seems to imply that it's somewhere close to 100%, which I think you'll find is not the case in recent data.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
> Looks like a publish date of 2021 Dec 16 This shows how long we've known GGP to be wrong. Omicron reduced effectiveness of the vaccines, but they still prevent Omicron infections. > Also, does that study make as strong of a claim as you are here? Yes. This was in a healthcare setting, where the employees were tested regularly. As also mentioned in the abstract, the actual measurement was test-negative, not just no symptoms. > why the "just not 100%"? Because vaccine conspiracy theorists don't understand statistics and like to use anecdotes instead. The vaccine reduces infections. It doesn't prevent them 100%.
- ifyoubuildit 4y ago
  I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, but I think it adds some nuance to the test-negative part (italic emphasis mine): > Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. In other words, if a case got covid but had no symptoms, that's counted as a win in this study. Which it obviously is a win, but doesn't meet the stronger criteria that you were claiming, which is that it stopped transmission. Maybe not a huge difference, but it is a difference. With regards to statistics, why not just say what percentage it actually prevents at the current state? My understanding is that efficacy against infection 90 days after your last shot is well below 50%, going down to basically nothing by something like 180 days. That's not what I'd infer from someone saying "it doesn't prevent them 100%".
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    > In other words, if a case got covid but had no symptoms, that's counted as a win in this study You're right. Here are a few studies that talk about reduction in infection specifically: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_year=2021&author=F+Rovidaauthor=I+Cassanitiauthor=S+Paolucci&title=SARS-CoV-2+vaccine+breakthrough+infections+with+the+alpha+variant+are+asymptomatic+or+mildly+symptomatic+among+health+care+workers.#d=gs_qabs&t=1675019884860&u=%23p%3DLSnOlIdApGgJ https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2794864 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... > With regards to statistics, why not just say what percentage it actually prevents at the current state? Because it hasn't been measured for Omicron (except as fourth dose vs. not), so I would be lying if I gave a percentage, just like how GGGGP was lying about it not reducing infections. All I have to do is show that the reduction in infections is more than 0%, which I have done. In addition to those studies, there are studies that show vaccinated healthcare professionals transmit less, which reduces total cases of myocarditis further.
    - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
      That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant? Yes, technically, all you have to show is some miniscule VE above 0% to be correct. But when you position it as "well its not 100%", but it's closer to 0% than 100%, isn't that misleading? Here's one in a very specific subset (kids 5 to 11 for omicron): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35767475/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35767475/ It shows 51% efficacy at 7 to 21 days after the second dose. That will quickly be closer to 0% than 100%. Presumably, a year after that series, virtually everyone in that cohort that was able to contract covid will have done so. Here is some interesting evidence on heart issues in unvaccinated covid patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ > We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection. I can't speak to whether the study is sound or not, but some food for thought on your point about myocarditis.
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago

lern_too_spel 4y ago

> Looks like a publish date of 2021 Dec 16 This shows how long we've known GGP to be wrong. Omicron reduced effectiveness of the vaccines, but they still prevent Omicron infections. > Also, does that study make as strong of a claim as you are here? Yes. This was in a healthcare setting, where the employees were tested regularly. As also mentioned in the abstract, the actual measurement was test-negative, not just no symptoms. > why the "just not 100%"? Because vaccine conspiracy theorists don't understand statistics and like to use anecdotes instead. The vaccine reduces infections. It doesn't prevent them 100%.

ifyoubuildit 4y ago
I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, but I think it adds some nuance to the test-negative part (italic emphasis mine): > Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. In other words, if a case got covid but had no symptoms, that's counted as a win in this study. Which it obviously is a win, but doesn't meet the stronger criteria that you were claiming, which is that it stopped transmission. Maybe not a huge difference, but it is a difference. With regards to statistics, why not just say what percentage it actually prevents at the current state? My understanding is that efficacy against infection 90 days after your last shot is well below 50%, going down to basically nothing by something like 180 days. That's not what I'd infer from someone saying "it doesn't prevent them 100%".
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  > In other words, if a case got covid but had no symptoms, that's counted as a win in this study You're right. Here are a few studies that talk about reduction in infection specifically: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_year=2021&author=F+Rovidaauthor=I+Cassanitiauthor=S+Paolucci&title=SARS-CoV-2+vaccine+breakthrough+infections+with+the+alpha+variant+are+asymptomatic+or+mildly+symptomatic+among+health+care+workers.#d=gs_qabs&t=1675019884860&u=%23p%3DLSnOlIdApGgJ https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2794864 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... > With regards to statistics, why not just say what percentage it actually prevents at the current state? Because it hasn't been measured for Omicron (except as fourth dose vs. not), so I would be lying if I gave a percentage, just like how GGGGP was lying about it not reducing infections. All I have to do is show that the reduction in infections is more than 0%, which I have done. In addition to those studies, there are studies that show vaccinated healthcare professionals transmit less, which reduces total cases of myocarditis further.
  - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
    That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant? Yes, technically, all you have to show is some miniscule VE above 0% to be correct. But when you position it as "well its not 100%", but it's closer to 0% than 100%, isn't that misleading? Here's one in a very specific subset (kids 5 to 11 for omicron): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35767475/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35767475/ It shows 51% efficacy at 7 to 21 days after the second dose. That will quickly be closer to 0% than 100%. Presumably, a year after that series, virtually everyone in that cohort that was able to contract covid will have done so. Here is some interesting evidence on heart issues in unvaccinated covid patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ > We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection. I can't speak to whether the study is sound or not, but some food for thought on your point about myocarditis.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago