My country attempted a 3rd dose, and within 2 weeks they were already reporting data on reduced risk of catching the virus in comparison to 2, 1, and 0 doses. These are studies done with sample sizes of millions of people.
After the 3rd vaccine, afaik, they compared the rates of hospitalizations of people do did vs. didn't yet get the 3rd vaccine, as compared to what happened the week before. They saw a drop in 3rd-vaccinated, and only in 3rd-vaccinated, implying that it did have an effect. And this wasn't a small population (I don't know exact numbers but I assume several 10s/100s of thousands).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2101765
This healthcare provider is able to follow up on people with detail for a really long time - they are notified of any vaccination, PCR test result, hospitalization and death within the country. They've likely made it possible to calculate the same data for the current day within a moment's notice, and use this information for quick decision-making.
I would expect other healthcare providers in other countries to have pooled this information if they are able to do so (and possibly publish it too).
> In lieu of answers, what has emerged is a host of case studies providing somewhat different pictures of breakthrough infections. Variables including when the surveys were conducted, whether the delta variant was present, how much of the population was vaccinated and even what the weather was like at the time make it hard to compare results and suss out patterns. It’s difficult to know which data might ultimately carry more heft.
> For the time being, there are simply more questions than answers. Are breakthrough infections ticking up because of the delta variant, waning immunity or a return to normal life? Are vaccinated people more vulnerable to severe illness than previously thought? Just how common are breakthrough infections? It’s anyone’s guess. “It is generally the case that we have to make public health decisions based on imperfect data,” Frieden said. “But there is just a lot we don’t know.”
Why can't the public draw their own conclusions and make their own health decisions, based on (imperfect) public data? Why does the data have to be kept secret? (Perhaps the data doesn't support the "public health decisions" and dictates of the state?)
If there's a concern that we can't effectively interpret the data, why can't we listen to whatever quack that we prefer and trust on national television that tells us that we really should not wear masks and couldn't wear them effectively, and they'd make us super sick because we'd be stupid about it and are completely untrainable (oh, and they're needed for health workers) -- no, wait, we should all wear masks, even if they're just thin pieces of cotton -- no, wait, even kids should wear at least two masks, even if they're running track and passing out.
It doesn't take much common sense to realize that exposure to virus is bad, masking while running is potentially much worse for everyone and not just the odd infection, and that it should be a choice if there are two evils.
Outdoor masking, outside the context of something like a crowded concert, is probably silly. But we can be pretty confident it won't affect your respiratory health.
Unless you are wearing something like an SCBA mask without an appropriate air supply—which is very much not the masking recommended against COVID—that’s not going to happen, even while exercising strenuously.
> It doesn't take much common sense to realize that exposure to virus is bad, masking while running is potentially much worse for everyone
You are correct, having that “realization” definitely requires very little common sense.
The person running an excel sheet at a state public health office has never had to “clean” data to find duplicates with St and Street… heck even the IRS website needed your exact address in ST or Street form (case sensitive) to inform you of a economic relief payment.
So in a way, I’m very happy our brightest minds are working on clicking ads rather than building an oppressive regime.
Well... as a citizen, I should have the right to stay back and watch what happens, and take it when I feel safe, instead of being forced to join the experiment.
“ Þórólfur wrote in his response to RÚV yesterday that the figures change quickly and that now the non-vaccinated infection rate is twice as high rather than three-times, the hospital admission rate is five-times higher, and the rate of admission to intensive care is also five-times higher than for vaccinated people.” https://www.ruv.is/frett/2021/08/19/unvaccinated-five-times-...
So your take away from someone complaining about the long recovery time from an accident after putting on his seatbelt and having the airbag deploy (which is annoying at the moment) is that we should remove those features because other people in other accidents without them had less severe injuries?
They got unlucky, which sucks. I wish the best for the GP, but the important thing is that this anecdote doesn’t necessarily represent a breakthrough case. But even if it did, the Pfizer vaccine is 96% effective at protecting people, so 4% are still going to get sick. All of this is inline with all the data I’ve seen at least. For this particular case we don’t even need to discuss the recent data showing Pfizer (and possibly Moderna) dropping to 80ish% effectiveness after four-five months.
Literally all the data says people are safer getting vaccinated.
Without the vaccine likelihood of hospitalization is even higher.