4 ms·
I've lost count of how many times we've seen the same headline for different variants and relating to different underlying results, and this "less effective" he
by convexfunction 5y ago
I've lost count of how many times we've seen the same headline for different variants and relating to different underlying results, and this "less effective" headline always seems to get interpreted by people I talk to as "we'll be back to living like it's 2020 again pretty soon here" rather than the much more accurate "kinda sucks for us collectively but if you and all your close contacts get vaccinated (if!) then it's probably not enough additional risk that you should want to change your behavior".
I notice that I'm also curious what their methodology for coming up with these effectiveness numbers is, and even the "original" public source at https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/rJQ1O5kp00 https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/rJQ1O5kp00 doesn't seem to make that clear.
- convexfunction 5y agoAfter researching a bit and finding this: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/israel-50-of-infected-are-vaccinated https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/israel-50-of-... I'm wondering whether this number is a population-level observational result that has more to do with someone ignoring base rates rather than delta actually being much better at causing infection.
- convexfunction 5y agoRe: downvotes: is there good reason to believe this interpretation is definitely wrong? I wasn't able to find any details on where this number came from, and while I'd like to give Israel's public health officials enough credit that they wouldn't make this mistake, I'm hesitant to actually do that without more than a few mystery meat "percent effectiveness" numbers.