8 ms·

It's not one or the other any more, as You can easily catch symptomatic Covid being fully vaccinated, question is; does risk multiply, sum or maybe the vaccine

It's not one or the other any more, as You can easily catch symptomatic Covid being fully vaccinated, question is; does risk multiply, sum or maybe the vaccine somehow protects against it.

alanfranz 5y ago
> easily I'd remove that word. It's more uncommon to get symptomatic covid in vaccinated vs unvaccinated. We still need to investigate whether myocarditis risks exceeds vaccine benefits in very young people.
- peteradio 5y ago
  > vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Unvaccinated is two groups that are wildly different: Those who've had Covid and those who haven't. Depending on where you are, unvaccinated may be majority share recovered, in which case this is an incorrect statement: > It's more uncommon to get symptomatic covid in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    That statement is still true if you split by those who have had Covid and those who haven't. In both groups, those who have been vaccinated are less likely to get symptomatic covid.
    - peteradio 5y ago
      According to which study? During Delta it did not appear to be significant difference.
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w#contribAff https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm... "rates among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were 29-fold lower (95% CI = 25.0–33.1) than rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis in California and 14.7-fold lower (95% CI = 12.6–16.9) in New York. Rates among vaccinated persons who had had COVID-19 were 32.5-fold lower (95% CI = 27.5–37.6) than rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis in California and 19.8-fold lower (95% CI = 16.2–23.5) in New York." Asking for a "significant" difference is just using weasel words to note that each individual post-Delta study is not powered to detect a difference with those very small slices and no metanalysis having been completed yet. Every single study has shown a point estimate difference that is consistent with vaccination conferring additional protection on those who have previously recovered.
        peteradio 5y ago
        I'm using the term correctly and whether the numbers combine to indicate technical statistical difference won't impact that small difference, it would just reduce the error bars. Taking new york high end vaccine effectiveness 23.5x and worst case natural immunity 12.6x you reduce your hazard ratio by factor of 2. That is absolute worst case for natural immunity and best case for vaccine. It will be a lot closer to 1 perhaps 1.2x. Now compare that to you worst case baseline reduction of 12.6x already and how much more do you have to gain? Are you for all practical purposes protected enough?
        lern_too_spel 5y ago
        > I'm using the term correctly > it would just reduce the error bars. Significance is about the error bars. You are not using the term correctly. The statement that you originally claimed to be incorrect remains true. It did not make any value judgments about whether a group is immune enough. It only made a factual claim that one group is less likely to get a symptomatic infection than another.
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  With omicron it is not uncommon. Family of 4, all of us vaccinated to the max, we all got it. Also my brother, many neighbors.
  - newbamboo 5y ago
    I don’t know any unvaccinated people who have gotten omicron. Every single one has been vaccinated, most have been fully boosted. People need to understand COVID is not one thing. Delta was very different from alpha, omicron wildly different from Delta, etc… They all have spike proteins sure, but so does the vaxxx.
  - brandon272 5y ago
    In my larger extended family, we are also vaccinated "to the max". None of us have gotten it. These anecdotes don't mean a lot.
    - newbamboo 5y ago
      Anecdotes become data at large n sizes. :) Also, if you’re theoretically vaccinated, wouldn’t that mean you don’t display symptoms if you contract the virus? Your family may have gotten omicron but the vaxx was effective and so you didn’t get sick enough to notice. That’s what the expert consensus, viz that the vaxx is effective, would predict, right?
      - brandon272 5y ago
        Yes, the potential exists that some or all of us have had covid cases that were completely asymptomatic because we were vaccinated… which then just speaks to the miraculous effectiveness of these vaccines.
        newbamboo 5y ago
        Agree. It’s hard to even remember any similarly successful pharmaceuticals. Maybe Lipitor or one of the recent hep c drugs, but I think Pfizer pulled in like 20 billion in the last year alone. Even more “miraculously effective” once you consider that it will be a few times a year drug rather than a “one and done.” Project Lightspeed was arguably the greatest achievement of our federal government since FDR.
- kaczordon 5y ago
  No reason to remove that word. Here are data for 2 doses of mRNA for effectiveness against Omicron infection. Follow the red line from figure 1 on page 27 of the PDF. Over time, it is 0%. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.07.22268919v1.full.pdf+html https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.07.22268919v...
  - brandon272 5y ago
    Seems weirdly selective to point to "over time it is 0%" ... well yes, I assume that if I never get another vaccination that at some point in time I may be susceptible to COVID. What this study does show is that with a booster shot you are offered significant immunity against COVID, including omicron. I'll take 50 or 60% over 0% any day of the week. I am incredibly grateful for the vaccines, which have done (and continue to do) a tremendous amount of heavy lifting as far as global health and reducing severe illness and hospitalization is concerned, despite those who like to pretend that they are pretty much useless.
    - kaczordon 5y ago
      What this study does show is that with a booster shot you are offered significant immunity against COVID, including omicron. The confidence interval is between 10%-60% for the booster, oddly selective of you to pick the highest number. The FDA standard is to have at least 50% VE, with lower bound CI >30% for EUA. What this study does show is that immunity is trending down and will likely hit 0 within a few months once the antibody response wanes. So yes, omicron does spread easily which is the original point I was contesting. In addition to this it is well known now that for men under 40 the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine outweighs the risk from the virus: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myocarditis-stratified https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myoca... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf
      - Tagbert 5y ago
        From the Nature article “We esti- mated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test.” Vaccine = +2-10 myocarditis events COVID infection = +40 myocarditis events And… “the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40.” I don’t see how you justify saying that the vaccine risk outweighs the risk form infection. That increase in myocarditis from vaccines was only present in men under 40 but the increase was still less than the increase from the virus.
gkfasdfasdf 5y ago
Sure there are breakthrough cases, but if you are unvaccinated the chances of catching covid are still much higher. And if you get myocarditis with the vaccine (which is rare) you will get it much worse with covid.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Actually, data from the only places which break this stuff out properly (like the UK) shows the rate amongst vaccinated people is massively higher than the rate amongst unvaccinated people. It's been like this for quite some time. Effectiveness is sharply negative by anywhere between 50% and 300% depending on age group.

It's not one or the other any more, as You can easily catch symptomatic Covid being fully vaccinated, question is; does risk multiply, sum or maybe the vaccine somehow protects against it.

alanfranz 5y ago

> easily I'd remove that word. It's more uncommon to get symptomatic covid in vaccinated vs unvaccinated. We still need to investigate whether myocarditis risks exceeds vaccine benefits in very young people.

peteradio 5y ago
> vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Unvaccinated is two groups that are wildly different: Those who've had Covid and those who haven't. Depending on where you are, unvaccinated may be majority share recovered, in which case this is an incorrect statement: > It's more uncommon to get symptomatic covid in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  That statement is still true if you split by those who have had Covid and those who haven't. In both groups, those who have been vaccinated are less likely to get symptomatic covid.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    According to which study? During Delta it did not appear to be significant difference.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w#contribAff https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm... "rates among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were 29-fold lower (95% CI = 25.0–33.1) than rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis in California and 14.7-fold lower (95% CI = 12.6–16.9) in New York. Rates among vaccinated persons who had had COVID-19 were 32.5-fold lower (95% CI = 27.5–37.6) than rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis in California and 19.8-fold lower (95% CI = 16.2–23.5) in New York." Asking for a "significant" difference is just using weasel words to note that each individual post-Delta study is not powered to detect a difference with those very small slices and no metanalysis having been completed yet. Every single study has shown a point estimate difference that is consistent with vaccination conferring additional protection on those who have previously recovered.
      - peteradio 5y ago
        I'm using the term correctly and whether the numbers combine to indicate technical statistical difference won't impact that small difference, it would just reduce the error bars. Taking new york high end vaccine effectiveness 23.5x and worst case natural immunity 12.6x you reduce your hazard ratio by factor of 2. That is absolute worst case for natural immunity and best case for vaccine. It will be a lot closer to 1 perhaps 1.2x. Now compare that to you worst case baseline reduction of 12.6x already and how much more do you have to gain? Are you for all practical purposes protected enough?
        lern_too_spel 5y ago
        > I'm using the term correctly > it would just reduce the error bars. Significance is about the error bars. You are not using the term correctly. The statement that you originally claimed to be incorrect remains true. It did not make any value judgments about whether a group is immune enough. It only made a factual claim that one group is less likely to get a symptomatic infection than another.
gameswithgo 5y ago
With omicron it is not uncommon. Family of 4, all of us vaccinated to the max, we all got it. Also my brother, many neighbors.
- newbamboo 5y ago
  I don’t know any unvaccinated people who have gotten omicron. Every single one has been vaccinated, most have been fully boosted. People need to understand COVID is not one thing. Delta was very different from alpha, omicron wildly different from Delta, etc… They all have spike proteins sure, but so does the vaxxx.
- brandon272 5y ago
  In my larger extended family, we are also vaccinated "to the max". None of us have gotten it. These anecdotes don't mean a lot.
  - newbamboo 5y ago
    Anecdotes become data at large n sizes. :) Also, if you’re theoretically vaccinated, wouldn’t that mean you don’t display symptoms if you contract the virus? Your family may have gotten omicron but the vaxx was effective and so you didn’t get sick enough to notice. That’s what the expert consensus, viz that the vaxx is effective, would predict, right?
    - brandon272 5y ago
      Yes, the potential exists that some or all of us have had covid cases that were completely asymptomatic because we were vaccinated… which then just speaks to the miraculous effectiveness of these vaccines.
      - newbamboo 5y ago
        Agree. It’s hard to even remember any similarly successful pharmaceuticals. Maybe Lipitor or one of the recent hep c drugs, but I think Pfizer pulled in like 20 billion in the last year alone. Even more “miraculously effective” once you consider that it will be a few times a year drug rather than a “one and done.” Project Lightspeed was arguably the greatest achievement of our federal government since FDR.
kaczordon 5y ago
No reason to remove that word. Here are data for 2 doses of mRNA for effectiveness against Omicron infection. Follow the red line from figure 1 on page 27 of the PDF. Over time, it is 0%. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.07.22268919v1.full.pdf+html https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.07.22268919v...
- brandon272 5y ago
  Seems weirdly selective to point to "over time it is 0%" ... well yes, I assume that if I never get another vaccination that at some point in time I may be susceptible to COVID. What this study does show is that with a booster shot you are offered significant immunity against COVID, including omicron. I'll take 50 or 60% over 0% any day of the week. I am incredibly grateful for the vaccines, which have done (and continue to do) a tremendous amount of heavy lifting as far as global health and reducing severe illness and hospitalization is concerned, despite those who like to pretend that they are pretty much useless.
  - kaczordon 5y ago
    What this study does show is that with a booster shot you are offered significant immunity against COVID, including omicron. The confidence interval is between 10%-60% for the booster, oddly selective of you to pick the highest number. The FDA standard is to have at least 50% VE, with lower bound CI >30% for EUA. What this study does show is that immunity is trending down and will likely hit 0 within a few months once the antibody response wanes. So yes, omicron does spread easily which is the original point I was contesting. In addition to this it is well known now that for men under 40 the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine outweighs the risk from the virus: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myocarditis-stratified https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myoca... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf
    - Tagbert 5y ago
      From the Nature article “We esti- mated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test.” Vaccine = +2-10 myocarditis events COVID infection = +40 myocarditis events And… “the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40.” I don’t see how you justify saying that the vaccine risk outweighs the risk form infection. That increase in myocarditis from vaccines was only present in men under 40 but the increase was still less than the increase from the virus.

gkfasdfasdf 5y ago

Sure there are breakthrough cases, but if you are unvaccinated the chances of catching covid are still much higher. And if you get myocarditis with the vaccine (which is rare) you will get it much worse with covid.

native_samples 5y ago
Actually, data from the only places which break this stuff out properly (like the UK) shows the rate amongst vaccinated people is massively higher than the rate amongst unvaccinated people. It's been like this for quite some time. Effectiveness is sharply negative by anywhere between 50% and 300% depending on age group.