Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackingforfun | Hacker News Reader

> If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with

I just don't think this is true. Again, look at the states in the US with the lowest levels of vaccination. They are running out of ICU beds due to the amount of cases.

I'm not sure where you're located. Maybe there's a low amount of cases there, but in general, the risk of being hospitalized (and maybe not having a bed to go to) is rather high. The delta variant is also affecting young people more than other variants before it. I personally think getting the COVID vaccine is a smart choice.

In terms of vaccinated people still spreading the virus, the idea with vaccination is to reduce the chance of being hospitalized. That still seems like a big benefit to me.

View on HN

It is true. There's an Oxford Covid risk calculator, and for an average 20 something person, the risk of hospitalization is ~0.002%.

https://qcovid.org/

Has this been updated for the delta variant which is estimated be twice as likely to cause hospitalization?

https://www.politico.eu/article/delta-coronavirus-variant-do...

So ~0.004% then. Are you suggesting that is statistically significant?

I'll get downvoted, but people keep forgetting that covid spread is exponential, not linear.

Ok, 0.008% if you want. Sure feels like an argument for argument sake. I can find a list of odds of things that will hurt/kill a 20-something where the percentage is greater than 0.008 if you'd like.

That calculator includes an estimate of likelihood of catching covid - so the actual risk of hospitalisation for someone who does catch covid is way, way higher - for a 25 year old man in the US it's about 1.6%.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort...

That calculator isn't telling you the risk of hospitalisation per case, but the risk of hospitalisation over a 90 day period during the first peak of the pandemic.

The two are very different. The calculated risk includes the fact that not everyone (or even most people) will get covid during that 90 day window. It's also based on the statistics for the original covid variant - by all accounts Delta is both more transmissible and more likely to cause hospitalisation.

The likelihood on a per-case basis is significantly higher. The Economist has a tool here: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort...

For example, a 25 year old man with no co-morbidity who receives a positive covid test has a 1.6% chance of hospitalisation. Obviously not everyone with covid will receive a positive test (I've seen an estimate of 1 in 4 are tested) - so perhaps that rate is actually 0.4%. That's way, way higher than the 0.002% you said.

Ultimately if covid is endemic, you will get it. At that point, even as a 25 year old, you're risking hospitalisation.

Thank you for the rapid and informative reply. I appreciate it (esp when the topic is a bit politicized right now)

I'm not from US so I haven't checked the stats closely for those states. My current city of residence is Tokyo. Afaik right now hospitalization seems quite bad, and there's no strict lockdown. I'm trying to work from home and dodge rush hours as much as possible to reduce the risk for now.

Do you have any numbers of "old vs young" hospitalization in the majority unvacinated area? And stats such as "young vaccinated vs young unvacinated" would also be interesting to see I would guess.

I've heard about the delta variant being more dangerous to the young, so that's for sure a important point. But last I heard the vaccine is not that effective to Delta variant, and also the delta variant difference seems to not be that much bigger according to this[0] study I found Jeremy Howard link on Twitter (I've only read the summary so I might be wrong on this)

Edit: thanks for the link hackingforfun, I'll be sure to take a look at it (tomorrow as it's late night here right now)

[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

I don't have numbers on "old vs young" hospitalization. I'd have to do some more googling for that and I need to get back to work.

However, regarding efficacy on the delta variant, from here [1]: Data so far suggests efficacy rates of approximately 67 percent for the J&J vaccine, 66 to 95 percent for the Moderna vaccine, and 42 to 96 percent for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

Seems like pretty good efficacy to me.

[1] https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-...

Indiana currently has about 44% of overall population vaccinated (3.0M out of 6.8M).

Since January the state has recorded the following numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths: [1]

    Unvaccinated  Vaccinated
  C      278,508       6,740
  H       16,322         226
  D        5,709          78

(The article did not provide a full breakdown by age, but did note that Indiana’s vaccinated population skews older and would have higher baseline risk for complications.)

[1]: https://www.kpcnews.com/covid-19/article_f0e9bff4-a968-56b3-...

I'm not trying to deny that the vaccine has a positive effect, but this data as presented (aggregated across the entire year) is extremely misleading. Here's why:

1) The infection/hospitalization/death rates were highest last winter, and relatively few people were vaccinated during the peak of the infection

2) A large proportion of the people in the Unvaccinated column here were infected long before we reached the current vaccination rate.

3) Therefore, suggesting that the numbers in this table represent the outcome of vaccination is simply not correct. This data is aggregated across the entire vaccination campaign and is completely confounded by the timing of waves vs that of vaccination rates.

If the goal is to build trust and present data transparently and fairly, why not show the same data with aggregation starting in July or starting AFTER reaching 40% vaccination rate?

More recent data would also be good for reflecting any impact from delta becoming the predominant variant.

That article only provides cases from the week of August 15:

    Unvaccinated  Vaccinated
  C       13,990       1,417

>But last I heard the vaccine is not that effective to Delta variant.

That's not exactly the case. Neutralizing antibodies created from the vaccines work about as well against delta as they did against alpha. The main differences are that delta:

  * Spreads more efficiently
  * Has a shorter incubation period
  * Produces a higher viral load in those infected

The incubation period being shorter means your T-cells have less time to ramp up in the case of naturally-waning antibody levels (which applies to people who were vaccinated at the beginning of the year), giving the infection more time to set in (remember, viruses grow exponentially). The higher viral load likewise means that the circulating antibody levels that were adequate for alpha may not be sufficient for delta. So we may see that people vaccinated with Moderna now have a better response against delta due to it creating twice as many antibodies.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2783797

> But last I heard the vaccine is not that effective to Delta variant.

It is not as effective as it was against earlier variants when it comes to preventing you from getting infected with COVID, but it is still very effective at preventing you from getting seriously ill or dying from COVID.

COVID is likely heading to endemic status where it is something we all get now and then, but we all have immunity from previous infections or vaccinations that largely protects us from serious illness when we do get it. In that world it is only your first infection that is dangerous for most people.

Vaccination essentially makes your first infection count as a second infection.

As someone going through a second infection now, I hope that’s not the case. It isn’t as bad as the first time so far but it’s still no fun. I’m a healthy 33 year old.

We should not consider the US to be a good sample, given the sky-high obesity rates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com