Coronavirus prep

1623624626628629747

Replies

  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Xikaiden wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    On messaging: It sure doesn't help when messaging from the CDC and media outlets focus on a statistical outlier like Provincetown where the vaccinated proved to be more likely to get sick than the unvaccinated. I just can't believe the data or it must be an outlier, so why focus on it so much?!

    I think it's getting more attention because it provided substantial new data on how the virus may behave among those who are vaccinated, adding to our knowledge on that aspect. I don't think the attention is primarily due to the size/scope of that outbreak.

    I never assumed it was due to the size of that outbreak, but more so that it is the only case I've heard about where the data shows that a vaccinated person is more likely to get Covid than an unvaccinated person. That's why I think it is a statistical outlier or possibly bad data. Nowhere else have I seen data that shows people are more likely to get Covid if they are vaccinated.

    You're assuming there were equal numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated people around to get infected. Imagine an outbreak with 30 cases, 10 unvaccinated and 20 vaccinated. You might go HEY WAIT BEING VACCINATED MADE YOU TWICE AS LIKELY TO GET COVID. But if the population was almost entirely vaccinated people - say, 20 unvaccinated, 2000 vaccinated. Then fully half the unvaccinated people caught it but only 10% of the vaccinated did.

    I dunno how vaxxed the guys at Bear Week at P-Town were :) But you see what I'm saying?

    No, I am not assuming that.

    Here's what we know from the MMWR: 69% of MA residents are vaccinated. 74% of the people who got Covid in this outbreak were vaccinated. If a vaccinated person is less likely to get Covid, the percentage of vaccinated people who got Covid should be less than the percentage of vaccinated people in the population as a whole.

    If the vaccination rate was 50%, then it would be far worse than what I'm seeing from the available data.

    ETA: If vaccinated rate was 75%, then it proves vaccinations help reduce risk of getting Covid. Or if 68% of those infected are vaccinated. The numbers to compare are vaccinated rate of population vs. rate of infection amongst those vaccinated.

    Does any of that data takes into consideration whether those that were vaccinated had other pre-existing health conditions or were fully healthy when catching covid post vaccine. Just curious.

    Work started requiring employee's mask up again (I personally never stopped) but most them are back to chin diapers again making it kinda pointless.....

    The MMWR only mentions underlying conditions for those who were hospitalized. 50% of the vaccinated who were hospitalized had underlying conditions. 100% of the unvaccinated who were hospitalized had multiple underlying conditions.

    Once again, data shows the vaccinated group was in worse shape here. Either the data is bad or vaccinations increase risk... or this is a statistical outlier. Since other data from other places shows different results, I strongly believe the CDC and media would stop focusing on this case and acting like it is a bellwether for future Delta variant outbreaks.

  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 2,828 Member
    I'm not sure if I have shared this already - apologies if so.

    Data from a few days ago
    Latest outbreak in NSW (state of Australia)

    Deaths: 13
    Vaccinated: 0
    Unvaccinated: 13

    Currently in ICU's: 54
    Vaccinated: 4
    Unvaccinated:50

    What's the vaccination rate in NSW? Without knowing that, one cannot logically draw any conclusions from the above data.

    OK, for those of you who disagree:

    Assume a population of 10,000 with only 10% of the population vaccinated. That means the vaccinated have a 0.4% (4/1000) chance of ending up in the ICU, and the unvaccinated have 0.6% chance (54/9000) of ending up in the ICU. Not nearly as big a difference as suggested by just looking at the raw numbers of cases.

    The lower the percentage of the population that is vaccinated the less convincing these numbers are. You need to know the vaccination rate to draw conclusions.

    For ease of reading, using the same common denominators is best. The two numbers you are comparing are actually 36/9000 vs 54/9000 and easier to see the point you are making. :)
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,950 Member
    SModa61 wrote: »
    I'm not sure if I have shared this already - apologies if so.

    Data from a few days ago
    Latest outbreak in NSW (state of Australia)

    Deaths: 13
    Vaccinated: 0
    Unvaccinated: 13

    Currently in ICU's: 54
    Vaccinated: 4
    Unvaccinated:50

    What's the vaccination rate in NSW? Without knowing that, one cannot logically draw any conclusions from the above data.

    OK, for those of you who disagree:

    Assume a population of 10,000 with only 10% of the population vaccinated. That means the vaccinated have a 0.4% (4/1000) chance of ending up in the ICU, and the unvaccinated have 0.6% chance (54/9000) of ending up in the ICU. Not nearly as big a difference as suggested by just looking at the raw numbers of cases.

    The lower the percentage of the population that is vaccinated the less convincing these numbers are. You need to know the vaccination rate to draw conclusions.

    For ease of reading, using the same common denominators is best. The two numbers you are comparing are actually 36/9000 vs 54/9000 and easier to see the point you are making. :)

    I would think it's more helpful to use the actual raw numbers in the example for people who don't understand why you need to know the vaccination rate to usefully compare the raw numbers. Why throw even more arithmetic at people for whom basic statistics is not intuitively obvious? If I had posted what you suggest, I would have expected the response to be, "Where the heck did you get 36 from? You're changing the numbers. It was just four vaccinated people in the ICU."
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,950 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I'm listening to a TWIV from the weekend and they mentioned they get lots of emails asking why they haven't done an episode about Delta. And they said that's because there is no scientifically verifiable data about it yet. It's too new. The data available is mostly anecdotal. The actual scientific study papers note that the data is insufficient to draw a solid conclusion, but articles draw conclusions anyway. But it's important to remember that public health officials can't wait for scientific conclusions, they see cases rising, they see ICUs filling up, and they have to do something. So the rely on the anecdotal or incomplete data as best they can.

    They touched on the MA outbreak. They noted that most Covid tests are measuring viral particles in the nose. They noted most of the vaccinated people who get sick at all get upper respiratory symptoms. They wonder if perhaps what the vaccine immunity is doing is blocking the viral particles from working their way down from the nasal passage, to the upper respiratory tract, and down into the lungs. If that's the case, the fact that vaxxed folks have particles in their nose triggering a positive test isn't useful info. They weren't sure what conclusions to draw from that yet though.

    I know you follow the science on this stuff closely, so this really is a question -- I was under the impression the vaccines work by preventing the virus from getting into our cells to replicate, not that they did much if anything about the initial particles in the virus you inhale, rub into your eyes, etc.? Am I way off base on this?
  • SModa61
    SModa61 Posts: 2,828 Member
    SModa61 wrote: »
    I'm not sure if I have shared this already - apologies if so.

    Data from a few days ago
    Latest outbreak in NSW (state of Australia)

    Deaths: 13
    Vaccinated: 0
    Unvaccinated: 13

    Currently in ICU's: 54
    Vaccinated: 4
    Unvaccinated:50

    What's the vaccination rate in NSW? Without knowing that, one cannot logically draw any conclusions from the above data.

    OK, for those of you who disagree:

    Assume a population of 10,000 with only 10% of the population vaccinated. That means the vaccinated have a 0.4% (4/1000) chance of ending up in the ICU, and the unvaccinated have 0.6% chance (54/9000) of ending up in the ICU. Not nearly as big a difference as suggested by just looking at the raw numbers of cases.

    The lower the percentage of the population that is vaccinated the less convincing these numbers are. You need to know the vaccination rate to draw conclusions.

    For ease of reading, using the same common denominators is best. The two numbers you are comparing are actually 36/9000 vs 54/9000 and easier to see the point you are making. :)

    I would think it's more helpful to use the actual raw numbers in the example for people who don't understand why you need to know the vaccination rate to usefully compare the raw numbers. Why throw even more arithmetic at people for whom basic statistics is not intuitively obvious? If I had posted what you suggest, I would have expected the response to be, "Where the heck did you get 36 from? You're changing the numbers. It was just four vaccinated people in the ICU."

    I see your point about the raw number data and not altering it. I still think the differing denominators can unfortunately be missed by people like me.
  • Gisel2015
    Gisel2015 Posts: 4,131 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    Regarding masking: I think we've hit a point where science is clashing with implementation. Up until now, mask mandates have been based on the science of how the virus is transmitted, evolving as we learned more about the virus but still basically applicable to most of the population.

    Now the science says unvaccinated people are mostly safe not wearing a mask but vaccinated people must continue. It's impossible to enforce this without going to the kind of extreme measures that would probably lead to (even more) violent demonstrations on one side or another. I just don't see a resolution.

    @mph323
    I am also puzzled about this statement. Could you please clarify if this is a typo or where did you get this information? We are pretty overwhelmed with good, bad and in between reports, and we shouldn't add more confusion to an already upside down world.

  • ythannah
    ythannah Posts: 4,366 Member
    I don't know where you are or what conditions are like there, but where I am, we are not "coming out" of anything. We just moved from moderate to substantial virus transmission levels in my area, and we're going back to mask mandates in all indoor public spaces tomorrow.

    I'll answer on behalf of Gail since I know she's in the same province as I am, Ontario. Mask mandates have never been dropped here, nor are we fully re-opened, although we're in a looser stage of restrictions than we've seen in a long time.

    Cases are starting to climb again in some areas. Positivity rate is 1.4%.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,950 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I'm listening to a TWIV from the weekend and they mentioned they get lots of emails asking why they haven't done an episode about Delta. And they said that's because there is no scientifically verifiable data about it yet. It's too new. The data available is mostly anecdotal. The actual scientific study papers note that the data is insufficient to draw a solid conclusion, but articles draw conclusions anyway. But it's important to remember that public health officials can't wait for scientific conclusions, they see cases rising, they see ICUs filling up, and they have to do something. So the rely on the anecdotal or incomplete data as best they can.

    They touched on the MA outbreak. They noted that most Covid tests are measuring viral particles in the nose. They noted most of the vaccinated people who get sick at all get upper respiratory symptoms. They wonder if perhaps what the vaccine immunity is doing is blocking the viral particles from working their way down from the nasal passage, to the upper respiratory tract, and down into the lungs. If that's the case, the fact that vaxxed folks have particles in their nose triggering a positive test isn't useful info. They weren't sure what conclusions to draw from that yet though.

    I know you follow the science on this stuff closely, so this really is a question -- I was under the impression the vaccines work by preventing the virus from getting into our cells to replicate, not that they did much if anything about the initial particles in the virus you inhale, rub into your eyes, etc.? Am I way off base on this?

    I don't 100% understand either, but yes I think that's how I understand it. I think the question is.. where does the virus get the toehold it needs to get into your cells, start replicating in overdrive, and do whatever damage it's going to do? And what is the best way to test whether the virus has done that or not? It seems like the public information out there is assuming that a positive test showing high level of virus in your nose means you're infected, but researchers don't actually know that's the case. I think, lol.

    Thanks!
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,950 Member
    SModa61 wrote: »
    SModa61 wrote: »
    I'm not sure if I have shared this already - apologies if so.

    Data from a few days ago
    Latest outbreak in NSW (state of Australia)

    Deaths: 13
    Vaccinated: 0
    Unvaccinated: 13

    Currently in ICU's: 54
    Vaccinated: 4
    Unvaccinated:50

    What's the vaccination rate in NSW? Without knowing that, one cannot logically draw any conclusions from the above data.

    OK, for those of you who disagree:

    Assume a population of 10,000 with only 10% of the population vaccinated. That means the vaccinated have a 0.4% (4/1000) chance of ending up in the ICU, and the unvaccinated have 0.6% chance (54/9000) of ending up in the ICU. Not nearly as big a difference as suggested by just looking at the raw numbers of cases.

    The lower the percentage of the population that is vaccinated the less convincing these numbers are. You need to know the vaccination rate to draw conclusions.

    For ease of reading, using the same common denominators is best. The two numbers you are comparing are actually 36/9000 vs 54/9000 and easier to see the point you are making. :)

    I would think it's more helpful to use the actual raw numbers in the example for people who don't understand why you need to know the vaccination rate to usefully compare the raw numbers. Why throw even more arithmetic at people for whom basic statistics is not intuitively obvious? If I had posted what you suggest, I would have expected the response to be, "Where the heck did you get 36 from? You're changing the numbers. It was just four vaccinated people in the ICU."

    I see your point about the raw number data and not altering it. I still think the differing denominators can unfortunately be missed by people like me.

    Sorry. It may be a situation where it's hard to find a way to talk about it that communicates well to everyone.