Hacker News Reader

Comment by ifyoubuildit | Hacker News Reader

Looks like a publish date of 2021 Dec 16, so that would have been pre omicron. Is that relevant anymore?

Also, does that study make as strong of a claim as you are here? It says:

"were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19"

which is good but I don't think necessarily rules out transmission, right?

I've asked this before, but why the "just not 100%"? That seems to imply that it's somewhere close to 100%, which I think you'll find is not the case in recent data.

View on HN

> Looks like a publish date of 2021 Dec 16

This shows how long we've known GGP to be wrong. Omicron reduced effectiveness of the vaccines, but they still prevent Omicron infections.

> Also, does that study make as strong of a claim as you are here?

Yes. This was in a healthcare setting, where the employees were tested regularly. As also mentioned in the abstract, the actual measurement was test-negative, not just no symptoms.

> why the "just not 100%"?

Because vaccine conspiracy theorists don't understand statistics and like to use anecdotes instead. The vaccine reduces infections. It doesn't prevent them 100%.

I'm not sure if I understand this correctly, but I think it adds some nuance to the test-negative part (italic emphasis mine):

> Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site.

In other words, if a case got covid but had no symptoms, that's counted as a win in this study. Which it obviously is a win, but doesn't meet the stronger criteria that you were claiming, which is that it stopped transmission. Maybe not a huge difference, but it is a difference.

With regards to statistics, why not just say what percentage it actually prevents at the current state? My understanding is that efficacy against infection 90 days after your last shot is well below 50%, going down to basically nothing by something like 180 days. That's not what I'd infer from someone saying "it doesn't prevent them 100%".

> In other words, if a case got covid but had no symptoms, that's counted as a win in this study

You're right. Here are a few studies that talk about reduction in infection specifically:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_...

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

> With regards to statistics, why not just say what percentage it actually prevents at the current state?

Because it hasn't been measured for Omicron (except as fourth dose vs. not), so I would be lying if I gave a percentage, just like how GGGGP was lying about it not reducing infections. All I have to do is show that the reduction in infections is more than 0%, which I have done. In addition to those studies, there are studies that show vaccinated healthcare professionals transmit less, which reduces total cases of myocarditis further.

That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant?

Yes, technically, all you have to show is some miniscule VE above 0% to be correct. But when you position it as "well its not 100%", but it's closer to 0% than 100%, isn't that misleading?

Here's one in a very specific subset (kids 5 to 11 for omicron):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35767475/

It shows 51% efficacy at 7 to 21 days after the second dose. That will quickly be closer to 0% than 100%. Presumably, a year after that series, virtually everyone in that cohort that was able to contract covid will have done so.

Here is some interesting evidence on heart issues in unvaccinated covid patients:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/

> We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection.

I can't speak to whether the study is sound or not, but some food for thought on your point about myocarditis.

> That first study is about alpha. Why is it relevant?

Why do you keep forgetting that this thread is about whether the the public health agencies lied about whether the vaccine prevents infections, despite the fact that I've repeatedly pointed that out? Once again, it prevents infections, we've known that for a very long time, and that's why it's relevant.

> I can't speak to whether the study is sound or not, but some food for thought on your point about myocarditis.

You should be because the very article we are in a discussion thread for is about that. It is a newer paper showing that COVID-19 infection carries a significantly greater risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine and that vaccinated people have reduced risk of myocarditis even if they get infected.

Oh, well thats where the confusion is. I didn't forget anything. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough, but my only interest in this thread was responding to this:

> The vaccine is known to prevent infections, just not 100%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551224/

Which is a kind of odd statement in 2023. It's currently known to slow down infections a little bit, nowhere near 100% even at it's best.

Times change and we have to keep up with them. Something that you thought you knew in 2021 isn't necessarily going to apply two years later.

The study I posted about myocarditis is just to show that there at least exists evidence to the contrary of what tfa is saying. I can't say which one wins, just that they both exist.

Edit: totally reasonable not to believe me. Maybe Bill Gates from a year ago can convince you: https://youtube.com/shorts/LfbYSbPF9uU?feature=share

> I didn't forget anything

You certainly forgot my explanation of the quote you were responding to. I never claimed it was near 100%. I merely said it was between 0 and 100%. The only one confused here is you, who seems to be confusing yourself deliberately.

> I can't say which one wins

The AHA can.

> Maybe Bill Gates from a year ago can convince you

As you keep confusing yourself into misunderstanding, Gates is saying nothing different from what I had claimed but something entirely different from what the person I responded to had claimed. Good job using a video with a vaccine conspiracy theory title though. No wonder you're so confused.

You said "it's just not 100%".

I guess I must just be confusing myself into thinking that is misleading. What a silly vaccine conspiracy theorist I am.

You're a really good troll btw, just not 100%.

I explained that earlier. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34570467

Are you seriously unable to remember? If I say vaccines prevent infection, a vaccine conspiracy theorist will say, "B-b-but my friend got vaccinated, and she still got infected." That's why I added that qualification, not to say it is near 100%. That's on you and your silly vaccine conspiracy theory interpretations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com