Comment by tomrod | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomrod | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I haven't had a chance to review the study yet (but look forward to doing so); I'm stating my current understanding.

Delta allowed for breakthrough cases; the rate was dramatically lower than unvaccinated overall (I handled reporting on some these stats in our region).

I haven't been as involved since the start of the omnicron variant, but my understanding is that the relationship still holds that prob(infected | vaccinated) < prob(infected | unvaccinated and no reported prior case).

COVID-19 intensity of illness was (and may still be?) associated to the relative infectiousness of an individual to others in their network (across the entire episode). So an asymptomatic individual (vs. presymptomatic before intense illness) was less infectious overall.[0]

> Question What are the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 G614 viral shedding in incident infections in association with COVID-19 symptom onset and severity?

> Findings In a cohort study of persons who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after recent exposure, viral RNA trajectory was characterized by a rapid peak followed by slower decay. Peak viral load correlated positively with symptom severity and generally occurred within 1 day of symptom onset if the patient was symptomatic.

[0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

Thanks, but I was asking specifically about evidence for significant impact on actual spread within the community, which is what's under discussion.

I'm aware there is data about severity of cases in individuals, but I haven't seen good data showing the impact to community transmission.

Ah. That's applications of basic propensity.

I'm trying to remember if our herd immunity artcle covered the monitoring stats ratios between vaccinated and unvaccinated. I'm thinking that the lead author left it out

[0] https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.21.0288

I don't know quite what you mean, but I take it that you have no evidence that vaccines significantly impact community transmission either.

You take it incorrectly.

The incidence rate ratios of COVID-19 are impacted by vaccination status.

Published January 28, 2022:

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7105e1.htm

> All incidence and hospitalization rate ratios exceeded 1, regardless of predominant variant, indicating that the risks were consistently highest for unvaccinated persons and that COVID-19 vaccines were protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19–associated hospitalization among fully vaccinated persons, and most protective among those with a booster.

Published 2/2/2022

[1] https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/...

This one shows a nice breakdown of the incidence rate ratio among age groups and similar.

------------

What does this have to do with community transmission?

[1] If you aren't infected, you aren't spreading the disease

[2] A lower transmission rate equates to lower community spread all else equal (as someone identified earlier, Jevon's paradox could come to head)

[3] The lower IRR is a lower propensity (or, if you prefer, a lower R_t) between the two groups.

-----------

This matches what I see in my regional reporting; the IRR is significantly different between the two groups. In my area (a red state in the US) behaviors are mostly back to pre-pandemic levels of behavior, so it is reasonable to conclude that the IRR in my area is representative of life following any COVID-19 protocols being relaxed.

You have no data showing the impact to community spread.

I do, but since the data is not publicly released its not shareable. Hence the reason I've explained and pointed you to the appropriate resources.

A reduction in the incidence rate ratio among vaccinated individuals is a reduction to community spread, ceterus paribus.

Have a good evening.

> I do, but since the data is not publicly released its not shareable.

I don't believe you do and I shouldn't need to either way. "Believe me bro" isn't science.

> Hence the reason I've explained

What's that supposed to mean? What reason, what explanation?

> and pointed you to the appropriate resources.

You pointed to no appropriate resources. You actually deflected from the question and provided a lot of links and waffle that did not answer the question at all. In case it wasn't clear, I was not asking for techbro handwaving about whether vaccines impact community transmission. I was asking for actual data.

> A reduction in the incidence rate ratio among vaccinated individuals is a reduction to community spread.

An assertion that you have failed to prove and have no evidence for, as far as I can see.

> Have a good evening.

You too. And try not to make any more claims you don't have evidence for, it's misinformation.

You're sealioning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

I'll respond here in case your engagement with disinformation caused anyone confusion.

> "Believe me bro" isn't science.

Correct. This is a public internet forum where private or restricted access sources are not shareable, not an open science conference. Hence the reason the Washington State and CDC studies were shared, which align to claims made.

> What's that supposed to mean? What reason, what explanation?

I'll refer you to prior comments in this discussion chain.

> pointed to no appropriate resources. ... provided a lot of links

Read the links provided.

> An assertion that you have failed to prove and have no evidence for, as far as I can see.

Tautologies generally don't need proof. I believe you're being intentionally deceptive here.

Why tautological: a reduction in an individual's capacity to become infected with the virus reduces their individual capacity to spread the disease. A community is a collection of individuals; reducing many people's capacity through a vaccine to spread disease reduces community spread.

I refer you to both the Washington State study as well as the CDC study for the recent incidence rate ratio comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

> You too. And try not to make any more claims you don't have evidence for, it's misinformation.

It's comments like these that show you are sealioning. Strong evidence for your questions have been provided in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30232957 -- your inability to acknowledge the evidence provided because it disproves your attempt at sowing confusion doesn't mean the evidence is not clearly presented and available.

Versus sealioning on a controversial topic -- that's disinformation. I find insulting when people engage in it, and I'll not entertain your comments further.

--------------------

For any reading this comment chain who may be confused -- vaccinations reduce community spread, the evidence has been provided in the comment linked, and I encourage you to strongly distrust when people are "just asking questions."

That's not what sealioning means. I'm asking for data for the one central assertion you made, and you are unable to provide it. Typing out increasingly waffling and verbose answers without providing that data, making yet more assertions you have no evidence for, and linking papers and data which do not answer the original question is the problem here.

You can't just cry "sealioning" after you make unsubstantiated claims and refuse to provide evidence for them.

> Correct. This is a public internet forum where private or restricted access sources are not shareable, not an open science conference.

Very convenient you just brought that up only after several back and forth posts that showed you were unable to substantiate your claim with actual data. You can see why I don't believe you.

> For any reading this comment chain who may be confused -- vaccinations reduce community spread, the evidence has been provided in the comment linked, and I encourage you to strongly distrust when people are "just asking questions."

Evidence was not provided. If evidence was provided, then you wouldn't be talking about these non-public sources of evidence you claim to be privy to, would you? They would be irrelevant because you would be able to just provide the evidence.

Your story has fallen apart badly. It's clearly pointless to keep beating a dead horse here and obviously you're not the type to ever admit they're wrong. Just keep it in mind for next time and stop yourself from spreading misinformation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com