Hacker News Reader

Comment by rbut | Hacker News Reader

In Australia the rationale for a Vaccine Passport is because the unvaccinated are super spreaders.

Yet, the latest data out of the UK (COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report Week 42, Page 13) [1] shows that the double-vaccinated are around TWICE as likely to catch COVID-19 (and according to the CDC, the viral load of a vaccinated person is the same as an unvaccinated person due to the vaccines being systemic and not mucosal vaccines).

This leaves two possible reasons for vaccine passports;

1) To punish the unvaccinated for not taking the vaccine.

2) To reduce the burden on the health system. But in a country nearing 90% double vaccinated, this point holds less weight.

What are peoples thoughts?

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

View on HN

"In Australia the rationale for a Vaccine Passport is because the unvaccinated are super spreaders."

That's definitely not the primary, or only reason. In many states, hospitals are severely underfunded and aren't ready for the influx of patients. Stop trying to make it sound like a vaccine passport has no rationale, not to mention, trivialize the amount of freedom Australians have had during the pandemic, compared to other counties.

According to daily media articles in Australia, the primary reason is the stated reason. I also mentioned the burden on the health system in point 2.

Freedom? This depends on the state. In Victoria, we had the longest lockdown in the entire world.

Point 2 is the stated aim. Will there be big difference between say 85% and 90%? Probably not, but it's a politically popular move so they'll keep pushing forwards with it.

I am not sure about the insignificance of 5%. In Germany, hospitals loose personnell, because after 3 big waves people simply can't cope with the stress any more. Every health system in countries which play fast and loose this winter will have a really bad time.

The difference between 85% and 90% is 50% -- ie at 85% there are 1.5x as many unvaccinated people cf 90%.

Yet, the latest data out of the UK (COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report Week 42, Page 13) [1] shows that the double-vaccinated are around TWICE as likely to catch COVID-19

I hope you don't work in programming or data analytics

Why?

If the answer is "of course there are more cases in the vaccinated, because more people are vaccinated", then see the table at the top of page 13, specifically the last 2 columns showing cases per 100,000 population. For age range 30-39 and above, the rates per population in the vaccinated are higher than the unvaccinated.

Cause, if you write "twice as likely" you will have to measure against vaccincation rates. If 1000 people are vaccinated, and 10 get infected, versus 10 unvaccinated with 1 infection: who is more likely?

In the hypothetical you gave, the unvaccinated is more likely (1/10 versus 1/100).

Compare that to the data from the UK vaccine surveillance report, and you'll see the opposite is true in reality (for age ranges 30-39 and above).

For example, for age range 30-39, between week 38 and 41 2021, there were 956.7 cases reported per 100,000 among the vaccinated, and 751.1 per 100,000 among the unvaccinated.

I would like to argue that point by saying these 100,000 are not separated in 100,000 vaccinated and 100,000 unvaccinated, but I am not sure.

Anyway: in Germany the numbers are: 4 times more probable for the unvaccinated. I all depends on how people protect themselves, and that is the reason for vaccination passes: less infections, much less symptoms, much much less hospitalisations, almost no deaths in otherwise healthy people under 80 = no lockdowns.

> I would like to argue that point by saying these 100,000 are not separated in 100,000 vaccinated and 100,000 unvaccinated, but I am not sure.

That is exactly how they are separated. What else would "Rates among persons vaccinated with 2 doses (per 100,000)" and "Rates among persons not vaccinated (per 100,000)" mean?

Evidently the vaccines in Germany are working more effectively. That's good news!

The commentary in the report states:

"The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns."

The rates per 100,000 already account for this. Refer to the last 2 columns of Table 2.

Reacted to that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28968555

I should have clarified in ages 30+ where COVID has more serious effects on a persons health.

Ref. 2nd-last and last columns of Table 2 on Page 13.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com