Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Vaccinated
Vaccinated then infection
Unvaccinated - Previous infection
Previous infection then vaccinated
Unvaccinated - No previous infection
Does anyone care about nuance anymore? Just saying vaccinated and unvaccinated is a disservice to the population
----
Other things to care about
Vaccinated with 2 mrna shots with > 3 weeks between shots
Vaccinated with 2 mrna shots with 3 weeks between shots
Vaccinated with viral vector
Previous infection then vaccinated > 6 weeks after symptoms were gone
1) immunologically naive (never been exposed to SARS-CoV-2)
2) vaccinated
3) recovered from previous infection
Most discussions on HN completely miss the distinction between these groups. The truth is, so far scientific consensus indicates that groups 2 & 3 are at least equally well protected and pose equivalent risk to others.
Much of the bickering here conflates groups 1 & 3 - it's such a common mistake I've grown tired of trying to discuss it.
Which reduces the set to two: immunologically naïve, and primed for an immune response.
Or as we like to call it, unvaccinated and vaccinated.
Edit: vaccination via live virus is absurdly foolish.
If they are, then the immunologically naive are even worse off than vaccinated/unvaccinated data suggests, making vaccination even more critical for anyone without a certainly-known prior infection.
Because getting to black and white and cutting through fuzziness is the whole point of expending resources on a study.
> Does anyone care about nuance anymore? Just saying vaccinated and unvaccinated is a disservice to the population
Not if your goal is to isolate the effect of vaccine rather than to do some kind of fuzzy emotional handholding to people's instinctive, non-fact-driven subjective feelings about what groupings are important.
Moreover, because potentially the vast majority (estimates vary widely) of prior infections will have been undetected, outside of some very special study designs which would necessarily be much smaller and less population-representative [0], throwing in prior infection as an independent variable is going to be garbage data (and, even if it wasn't, any information from it would generally be nonactionable for the same reason.)
[0] e.g., using a subpopulation that is carefully monitored for infection, like healthcare workers.
I mean all the groups I presented have some sort of merit to them based off research (delayed 2nd shot), at least observational studies (previous infection then vaccine) or guidelines from CDC on other viruses (previous infection). Doesn't seem emotional.
I'm vaccinated. If I'm around someone with a delta infection, do I have 5X the amount of time to get away? Can I receive 5X the amount of viral particles with the same infection risk? Is my immune system response 5X as effective at preventing an infection?
I'm assuming its a population level analysis and not at all attenuated to individual immune response performance (unlike the death multiple which I think you can draw individual conclusions from). But I'm wondering what function (if at all) the MRNA vaccines play in reducing COVID infection.
Basically, if I engage in risky behaviors (no mask wearing, hanging around in big crowds) am I 5X less likely to pass the virus onto my son?
We are approaching the limits of empiricism.
Or are the trials being conducted clandestinely?
An imperfect but reasonable study is not an excuse to throw everything out and jump to your own conclusions.
There is no reason to believe there is a large group of people who behaved as if covid were not dangerous and who also felt an urgent need to take the vaccine. The existence of such a group of people is vital to whether or not data can be used to make these claims about the covid vaccine.
Until the existence of that group is shown I don't understand how behavior is controlled for. Everyone claims to be following the rules. case in point, my mother in law is absolutely freaked out about covid. Has the vaccine. Masks. Distances etc. Except she breaks the rules whenever convenient. But in her mind these are necessary. She'll still complain about others who break the rules similarly. Lots of people are this way. You can't trust self reports and you can't follow that many people
Also, and more egregiously, there is a history of fake covid studies destined to make those on the 'side' of the anti vaxxers look bad. So my bayesian a priori estimate of the usefulness of studies on the other 'side' is shifted more to the distrust side.
Look at the table "Americans' Use of Face Masks, by Vaccination Status". 90% of the vaccinated still wear masks. 49% of the unvaxxed do.
The study hinges on a magical group of vax recipients that act as if covid doesn't exist now and behaved the same before the vax . There is little reason to believe this group exists in large numbers.
So why is mask wearing so correlated with taking a vaccine? I think you are suggesting one causation, yet the actual reason is probably the “hidden” correlate of partisanship. Lots of people use mask wearing to show party affiliation, and I would guess that party affiliation in the US is highly correlated with taking the vaccine or not.
Also you didn’t answer at all your original point “It means nothing as these studies rarely take into account confounding variables. For example the vaxxed are more likely to distance and stay at home”. Instead your link has nothing to do with correlation of distancing or staying at home. Changing the topic is a classic technique.
I'm just pointing out that the vaxxed are more likely to follow other safeguards, like wearing masks, which I imagine is also correlated with distancing. This seems obvious to me, and informs my a priori assumptions. If you have data that shows that those who wear masks are also more likely to ignore social distancing (a counterintuitive result indeed), I'd be happy to change my assessment.
We can argue all you like about correlations, but when you say “means nothing” you need a bit more data than handwaving at a single measurement.
Everyone understands correlations exist, but you can’t just dismiss their headline “5X” figure without something more substantive.
And please don’t jump to your inference that I was trying to say masks don’t work. HN guidelines: “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”. Edit: And to be clear, one minor point I was making was to agree with you that confounding variables exist.
I don’t care about correlations. I do care that you seemed to make a glib dismissal of the original article, and then you are failing to defend your dismissal and simply introducing a range of irrelevancies. Edit: perhaps justify why your opinion means anything compared with the data presented in original paper: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm
> Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch delta (than vaccinated), 11X more likely to die (than vaccinated)
Fixed the headline.
"... I had gone to a house party in Montgomery County. There were 15 adults there, all of us fully vaccinated."
"... Then, I started to hear that a few other people who had been at the party were getting sick. Then a few more. At this point, 11 of the 15 have tested positive for COVID."
"... The CDC announced in May that it was only going to collect data on breakthrough infections that led to hospitalization or death, which are fortunately rare."
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0804-bre...
That was unacceptable.
Something that reduces your chance of dying by 11x is something that works. Why do anti vaxxers use binary arguments so much (it must make me completely immune, or the vaccine is worthless!)?
Once the risk is low enough, you dont care as much about relative risk reduction.
Covid is survivable enough (for my demographic) that I dont care much about how the vaccine increases my odds of survival. I care more about long term risks of the vaccine and long term risks of covid and how the vaccine may mitigate it.
If grandma is uncomfortable with the risks of being around others, she may isolate herself and bear the costs of isolation. She shouldn't be so entitled to demand that others take on a risk for her benefit.