It's not one or the other any more, as You can easily catch symptomatic Covid being fully vaccinated, question is; does risk multiply, sum or maybe the vaccine somehow protects against it.
I'd remove that word. It's more uncommon to get symptomatic covid in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
We still need to investigate whether myocarditis risks exceeds vaccine benefits in very young people.
Unvaccinated is two groups that are wildly different:
Those who've had Covid and those who haven't. Depending on where you are, unvaccinated may be majority share recovered, in which case this is an incorrect statement:
> It's more uncommon to get symptomatic covid in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
"rates among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were 29-fold lower (95% CI = 25.0–33.1) than rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis in California and 14.7-fold lower (95% CI = 12.6–16.9) in New York. Rates among vaccinated persons who had had COVID-19 were 32.5-fold lower (95% CI = 27.5–37.6) than rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis in California and 19.8-fold lower (95% CI = 16.2–23.5) in New York."
Asking for a "significant" difference is just using weasel words to note that each individual post-Delta study is not powered to detect a difference with those very small slices and no metanalysis having been completed yet. Every single study has shown a point estimate difference that is consistent with vaccination conferring additional protection on those who have previously recovered.
> it would just reduce the error bars.
Significance is about the error bars. You are not using the term correctly.
The statement that you originally claimed to be incorrect remains true. It did not make any value judgments about whether a group is immune enough. It only made a factual claim that one group is less likely to get a symptomatic infection than another.
People need to understand COVID is not one thing. Delta was very different from alpha, omicron wildly different from Delta, etc… They all have spike proteins sure, but so does the vaxxx.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.07.22268919v...
What this study does show is that with a booster shot you are offered significant immunity against COVID, including omicron. I'll take 50 or 60% over 0% any day of the week.
I am incredibly grateful for the vaccines, which have done (and continue to do) a tremendous amount of heavy lifting as far as global health and reducing severe illness and hospitalization is concerned, despite those who like to pretend that they are pretty much useless.
The confidence interval is between 10%-60% for the booster, oddly selective of you to pick the highest number. The FDA standard is to have at least 50% VE, with lower bound CI >30% for EUA.
What this study does show is that immunity is trending down and will likely hit 0 within a few months once the antibody response wanes. So yes, omicron does spread easily which is the original point I was contesting.
In addition to this it is well known now that for men under 40 the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine outweighs the risk from the virus: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myoca...
“We esti- mated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test.”
Vaccine = +2-10 myocarditis events
COVID infection = +40 myocarditis events
And…
“the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40.”
I don’t see how you justify saying that the vaccine risk outweighs the risk form infection. That increase in myocarditis from vaccines was only present in men under 40 but the increase was still less than the increase from the virus.
Incorrect, you can clearly see from figure 2 on page 11 that the second dose of Moderna had a higher risk than the virus. Is there a reason you omit this?
That increase in myocarditis from vaccines was only present in men under 40
The paper doesn’t contain a breakdown in the sex difference. This was for men and women.
The authors have an updated pre-print that breaks it down by sex and both Pfizer and Moderna had higher rates than the virus for men(page 13): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
If the authors fixed the denominator for viral infection (i.e. used sero-prevalance), it would look even worse.
Absolutely false as noted by the other reply to this comment.
Don’t just blindly trust someone else’s comment.
You can clearly see from figure 2 on page 11 that the second dose of Moderna has a higher risk than the virus. The updated preprint also shows this for Pfizer.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... (page 13)
My other point on vaccine effectiveness against omicron stands as well.