5 ms·

Did you see their response on page 5? I'm skeptical like you generally but I find it a believable explanation. "All results, including the positivity rates by

Did you see their response on page 5? I'm skeptical like you generally but I find it a believable explanation. "All results, including the positivity rates by vaccination status graph, are unadjusted. The team has observed that the positivity rates among unvaccinated individuals seen on the bar graph appear to be lower in comparison to vaccinated individuals. Furthermore, repeat testing among those who were previously positive in the last 90 days appear to confound the results. The team conducted additional analyses examining characteristics of the patient population by vaccination status and the impact of excluding recent COVID-19 cases (5.0% of total tests). Findings show that the unvaccinated group are typically younger and healthier, less symptomatic and less likely to report direct COVID-19 exposure or recent travel compared to vaccinated groups. Controlling for recent COVID-19 cases, results show that the unvaccinated group has a 17.1% higher positivity rate compared to the 3-dose group. Controlling for additional factors leads to a larger difference between groups."

dukeofdoom 4y ago
Without a paper to show on how exactly they controlled for this difference its neither here nor there. "Findings show that the unvaccinated group are typically younger and healthier, less symptomatic and less likely to report direct COVID-19 exposure or recent travel compared to vaccinated groups." This just seems to be adjusting results until it fits your hypothesis. Release a a paper on the adjustments and lets see if it will withstand scrutiny. Even without more details, I can already see some logical flaws here in the way they penalize the unvaccinated population. They admit the unvaccinated are healthier and less likely to get sick, and adjust. Now the problem with this is they completely ignore the possibility they are healthier, because they did not take the vaccine. They also discard recent results...why? Also notice how they break down the into sub groups of the vaccinated into 5 months and over 5 months. This makes it seem closer than it really is. If you don't do that, you get even a wider gap: 6.9 % infection rate in the unvaccinated vs 12% in the single dose vaccinated 23.5% in the two dose vaccinated. 29.9% in the three dose vaccinated.

dukeofdoom 4y ago

Without a paper to show on how exactly they controlled for this difference its neither here nor there. "Findings show that the unvaccinated group are typically younger and healthier, less symptomatic and less likely to report direct COVID-19 exposure or recent travel compared to vaccinated groups." This just seems to be adjusting results until it fits your hypothesis. Release a a paper on the adjustments and lets see if it will withstand scrutiny. Even without more details, I can already see some logical flaws here in the way they penalize the unvaccinated population. They admit the unvaccinated are healthier and less likely to get sick, and adjust. Now the problem with this is they completely ignore the possibility they are healthier, because they did not take the vaccine. They also discard recent results...why? Also notice how they break down the into sub groups of the vaccinated into 5 months and over 5 months. This makes it seem closer than it really is. If you don't do that, you get even a wider gap: 6.9 % infection rate in the unvaccinated vs 12% in the single dose vaccinated 23.5% in the two dose vaccinated. 29.9% in the three dose vaccinated.