6 ms·

It's pretty clear actually. The point the paper is making about vaccine status is this: If you have strong symptoms, you shed lots of virus, regardless of whet

It's pretty clear actually. The point the paper is making about vaccine status is this: If you have strong symptoms, you shed lots of virus, regardless of whether you are vaccinated or not. From separate studies, we know that if you are vaccinated, you are less likely to have serious symptoms. Put the two together. Fewer people seriously ill is fewer people shedding lots of virus, and more people vaccinated is fewer people seriously ill

taeric 3y ago
Having these as carve outs, though, gives me pause there. The claim seems to be that, on average, higher symptoms means more shedding. However, trying to control for any other variable results in no significant finding. This would imply that they did not find a correlation between vaccination and severity of symptoms in their testing. I'm willing to chalk that up to them not having enough vaccinated people in their study. That fits the caveat they give regarding vaccinated people. It does not automatically support your read, though.
- mint2 3y ago
  I don’t think this is quite right of a reading “This would imply that they did not find a correlation between vaccination and severity of symptoms in their testing.” Instead, I think a more accurate rough understanding of their process is they first backed out the effect of severity and then checked if vaccine was correlated with that adjusted number - they found it wasn’t. They didn’t make an assessment on how vaccines effect severity.
  - taeric 3y ago
    My read wasn't that they made an assessment of vaccine on severity. Rather, I read that they found that it had no impact on transmission. They found that, on average, self reported severity correlated with transmission. However, they then state that transmission does not correlate with vaccination status. I could hope that they mean there is no extra relation between vaccination status and transmission above reduced symptoms. I don't know why they would state it in the way they do if that is what they mean, though.
    - mint2 3y ago
      I agree it is poorly stated, but that is what they mean, no extra impact beyond reduced symptoms and the benefit thereof.
      - taeric 3y ago
        How do you know that?
        mint2 3y ago
        Because their paper states it. That’s what is meant by “when accounting for etc” in: “We found that vaccinated and unvaccinated participants exhaled similar numbers of SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies (Fig 2C), when accounting for age, sex, presence of co-morbidities, days since symptom onset and symptom severity”
        taeric 3y ago
        That... doesn't say anything about them exhaling less? It specifically says that they exhibit the same. You can make a logical jump to say that, combined with a high variance but statistically significant link to self reported symptoms, that maybe vaccinated would have people that self report lower levels. But, that is specifically not in the comparison that you quoted. It says only that vaccinated and unvaccinated are not distinguishable.
        mint2 3y ago
        It’s saying indistinguishable when adjusted for severity. It’s like saying night and day in Yosemite are equally bright when effects of the sun and moon are controlled for. Look, this doesn’t appear to be sticking, it’s a basic statistical modeling thing. At this point the options are accept it at face value, study stats, or be like the kid saying “why” 100 times after every explanation.
        taeric 3y ago

taeric 3y ago

Having these as carve outs, though, gives me pause there. The claim seems to be that, on average, higher symptoms means more shedding. However, trying to control for any other variable results in no significant finding. This would imply that they did not find a correlation between vaccination and severity of symptoms in their testing. I'm willing to chalk that up to them not having enough vaccinated people in their study. That fits the caveat they give regarding vaccinated people. It does not automatically support your read, though.

mint2 3y ago
I don’t think this is quite right of a reading “This would imply that they did not find a correlation between vaccination and severity of symptoms in their testing.” Instead, I think a more accurate rough understanding of their process is they first backed out the effect of severity and then checked if vaccine was correlated with that adjusted number - they found it wasn’t. They didn’t make an assessment on how vaccines effect severity.
- taeric 3y ago
  My read wasn't that they made an assessment of vaccine on severity. Rather, I read that they found that it had no impact on transmission. They found that, on average, self reported severity correlated with transmission. However, they then state that transmission does not correlate with vaccination status. I could hope that they mean there is no extra relation between vaccination status and transmission above reduced symptoms. I don't know why they would state it in the way they do if that is what they mean, though.
  - mint2 3y ago
    I agree it is poorly stated, but that is what they mean, no extra impact beyond reduced symptoms and the benefit thereof.
    - taeric 3y ago
      How do you know that?
      - mint2 3y ago
        Because their paper states it. That’s what is meant by “when accounting for etc” in: “We found that vaccinated and unvaccinated participants exhaled similar numbers of SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies (Fig 2C), when accounting for age, sex, presence of co-morbidities, days since symptom onset and symptom severity”
        taeric 3y ago
        That... doesn't say anything about them exhaling less? It specifically says that they exhibit the same. You can make a logical jump to say that, combined with a high variance but statistically significant link to self reported symptoms, that maybe vaccinated would have people that self report lower levels. But, that is specifically not in the comparison that you quoted. It says only that vaccinated and unvaccinated are not distinguishable.
        mint2 3y ago
        It’s saying indistinguishable when adjusted for severity. It’s like saying night and day in Yosemite are equally bright when effects of the sun and moon are controlled for. Look, this doesn’t appear to be sticking, it’s a basic statistical modeling thing. At this point the options are accept it at face value, study stats, or be like the kid saying “why” 100 times after every explanation.
        taeric 3y ago