4 ms·

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 basi

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
    > That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant? Why do you keep forgetting that this thread is about whether the the public health agencies lied about whether the vaccine prevents infections, despite the fact that I've repeatedly pointed that out? Once again, it prevents infections, we've known that for a very long time, and that's why it's relevant. > I can't speak to whether the study is sound or not, but some food for thought on your point about myocarditis. You should be because the very article we are in a discussion thread for is about that. It is a newer paper showing that COVID-19 infection carries a significantly greater risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine and that vaccinated people have reduced risk of myocarditis even if they get infected.
    - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
      Oh, well thats where the confusion is. I didn't forget anything. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, but my only interest in this thread was responding to this: > The vaccine is known to prevent infections, just not 100%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/ Which is a kind of odd statement in 2023. It's currently known to slow down infections a little bit, nowhere near 100% even at it's best. Times change and we have to keep up with them. Something that you thought you knew in 2021 isn't necessarily going to apply two years later. The study I posted about myocarditis is just to show that there at least exists evidence to the contrary of what tfa is saying. I can't say which one wins, just that they both exist. Edit: totally reasonable not to believe me. Maybe Bill Gates from a year ago can convince you: https://youtube.com/shorts/LfbYSbPF9uU?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/LfbYSbPF9uU?feature=share

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
  > That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant? Why do you keep forgetting that this thread is about whether the the public health agencies lied about whether the vaccine prevents infections, despite the fact that I've repeatedly pointed that out? Once again, it prevents infections, we've known that for a very long time, and that's why it's relevant. > I can't speak to whether the study is sound or not, but some food for thought on your point about myocarditis. You should be because the very article we are in a discussion thread for is about that. It is a newer paper showing that COVID-19 infection carries a significantly greater risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine and that vaccinated people have reduced risk of myocarditis even if they get infected.
  - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
    Oh, well thats where the confusion is. I didn't forget anything. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, but my only interest in this thread was responding to this: > The vaccine is known to prevent infections, just not 100%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/ Which is a kind of odd statement in 2023. It's currently known to slow down infections a little bit, nowhere near 100% even at it's best. Times change and we have to keep up with them. Something that you thought you knew in 2021 isn't necessarily going to apply two years later. The study I posted about myocarditis is just to show that there at least exists evidence to the contrary of what tfa is saying. I can't say which one wins, just that they both exist. Edit: totally reasonable not to believe me. Maybe Bill Gates from a year ago can convince you: https://youtube.com/shorts/LfbYSbPF9uU?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/LfbYSbPF9uU?feature=share