5 ms·

I agree it is poorly stated, but that is what they mean, no extra impact beyond reduced symptoms and the benefit thereof.

by mint2 3y ago

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
        But they specifically say that differently? As I said in another, you are jumping from severity correlating with vaccine to get to this idea. But, they actually call out self reported severity as correlating. Such that, if the correlations were strong enough it would have also showed up in their control for that variable. Stated differently, you have variables A = self-reported severity B = amount shed C = vaccinated status If A and B are correlated, and A and C are correlated, there will a floor to how correlated B and C can be. Their later sentence is that the correlation between B and C is below the significance floor. They never comment on how correlated A and C are. You could argue there is another variable D = Actual Severity, but that is not covered in the statements I remember.
        mint2 3y ago
        This is where the mistaken reasoning is, they aren’t measuring or reporting on that naive correlation between B and C that you’re focusing on. They are saying after backing out the correlation between A and B to get adjusted B, there is no correlation between C and adjusted B. That is an ELI5 explanation of their statement “controlled for” about the factors like severity. Yes their focus is not on how A and C relate, but we know that relation from other sources. That is what controlled for means. “Hello” means a greeting in English. It’s the definition. Same concept, it’s the meaning of controlled for. It’s what it was defined to mean.
        taeric 3y ago
        The quote they use is "We found no impact of vaccination status, viral variant, age, sex, or presence of co-morbidities." Specifically, in the section "Exhaled SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels increased with self-reported symptom severity," they say that they found folks with reported severe symptoms were higher than the others. However, it is worded and presented such that really only "severe" was higher. Indeed, figure 3c shows that vaccinated individuals have similar spikes as otherwise. (The CI is actually higher and wider on the chart for vaccinated?) That chart also highlights that people reporting "none" exhale more than people that report "some" and has peaks as high as those that say severe. Really, the "severe" just shows that at that level it is harder to ignore for anyone. (The min is higher.) Now, the section "Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals exhaled similar levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA," calls out the actual high data points for unvaccinated as being actually higher, with a max of 876 to 549. Though, again, it shows the CI is wider for vaccinated. Again, I'm mostly willing to get behind the claim that vaccinated people shed less. But that isn't strongly supported by the data. The data does support that super spreaders of 500+ exhaled breaths are unvaccinated. So, if you want to limit the claim to "vaccinated people are kept from severe symptoms," I feel that is mostly known and agreed with today. If you try to move the claim to "vaccinated shed less than unvaccinated," the data clearly indicates that is not supported. Again the 95% CI is higher for vaccinated individuals on this study.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

I agree it is poorly stated, but that is what they mean, no extra impact beyond reduced symptoms and the benefit thereof.

by 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
      But they specifically say that differently? As I said in another, you are jumping from severity correlating with vaccine to get to this idea. But, they actually call out self reported severity as correlating. Such that, if the correlations were strong enough it would have also showed up in their control for that variable. Stated differently, you have variables A = self-reported severity B = amount shed C = vaccinated status If A and B are correlated, and A and C are correlated, there will a floor to how correlated B and C can be. Their later sentence is that the correlation between B and C is below the significance floor. They never comment on how correlated A and C are. You could argue there is another variable D = Actual Severity, but that is not covered in the statements I remember.
      - mint2 3y ago
        This is where the mistaken reasoning is, they aren’t measuring or reporting on that naive correlation between B and C that you’re focusing on. They are saying after backing out the correlation between A and B to get adjusted B, there is no correlation between C and adjusted B. That is an ELI5 explanation of their statement “controlled for” about the factors like severity. Yes their focus is not on how A and C relate, but we know that relation from other sources. That is what controlled for means. “Hello” means a greeting in English. It’s the definition. Same concept, it’s the meaning of controlled for. It’s what it was defined to mean.
        taeric 3y ago
        The quote they use is "We found no impact of vaccination status, viral variant, age, sex, or presence of co-morbidities." Specifically, in the section "Exhaled SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels increased with self-reported symptom severity," they say that they found folks with reported severe symptoms were higher than the others. However, it is worded and presented such that really only "severe" was higher. Indeed, figure 3c shows that vaccinated individuals have similar spikes as otherwise. (The CI is actually higher and wider on the chart for vaccinated?) That chart also highlights that people reporting "none" exhale more than people that report "some" and has peaks as high as those that say severe. Really, the "severe" just shows that at that level it is harder to ignore for anyone. (The min is higher.) Now, the section "Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals exhaled similar levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA," calls out the actual high data points for unvaccinated as being actually higher, with a max of 876 to 549. Though, again, it shows the CI is wider for vaccinated. Again, I'm mostly willing to get behind the claim that vaccinated people shed less. But that isn't strongly supported by the data. The data does support that super spreaders of 500+ exhaled breaths are unvaccinated. So, if you want to limit the claim to "vaccinated people are kept from severe symptoms," I feel that is mostly known and agreed with today. If you try to move the claim to "vaccinated shed less than unvaccinated," the data clearly indicates that is not supported. Again the 95% CI is higher for vaccinated individuals on this study.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]