Coronavirus prep

Options
1629630632634635747

Replies

  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:

    www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

    They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.

    There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.

    This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.

    Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.

    As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.

    Again, the 69% is for the entire state, not for the attendees of these events in this one town. The 69% and 74% have nothing to do with each other and comparing them statistically means absolutely nothing. It never meant vaccination increases your risk tif infection, regardless of how data was collected.

    I believe the focus on where they were gathering was to stress that this one situation shouldn't be extrapolated to most people's situation. These vaccinated people put themselves into a high risk, concentrated environment for an extended period of time. So it's no reason for some of the panicked reactions many are having if they are still being mindful of spacing and ventilation in places they can't be sure everyone is vaccinated and healthy.

    We will never have vaccinated rates for the exact population directly exposed. Using the state vaccination rate is reliable enough for the CDC to use in its MMWR.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:

    www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

    They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.

    There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.

    This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.

    Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.

    As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.

    https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-vaccines-pfizer-moderna-delta-biden-e9be4bb0-3d10-4f56-8054-5410be357070.html

    If Pfizer protection is down to 42% that could support the numbers you posted. One study showed Pfizer protection declining after 6 months.

    That's not the right extrapolation. Only one hospitalized patient (of 5, no deaths) had Pfizer. The most likely explanation (although Carnivore is right, the data is wanting) is that nearly 100% of the Bear Week attendees were vaccinated, which seems likely. And the vast majority of them, despite what seems to be super risky behavior, did not get seriously ill and none died. Yay, vaxx.

    This is a fair point, but the CDC and the media have failed to focus on this. Instead, they just wanted to talk about Delta variant and breakthrough cases. Focusing on the negative statistics, whether cherry picking this specific outbreak with exceptionally bad results, or focusing on positive cases instead of the outcomes.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:

    www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

    They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.

    There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.

    This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.

    Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.

    As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.

    Again, the 69% is for the entire state, not for the attendees of these events in this one town. The 69% and 74% have nothing to do with each other and comparing them statistically means absolutely nothing. It never meant vaccination increases your risk tif infection, regardless of how data was collected.

    I believe the focus on where they were gathering was to stress that this one situation shouldn't be extrapolated to most people's situation. These vaccinated people put themselves into a high risk, concentrated environment for an extended period of time. So it's no reason for some of the panicked reactions many are having if they are still being mindful of spacing and ventilation in places they can't be sure everyone is vaccinated and healthy.

    We will never have vaccinated rates for the exact population directly exposed. Using the state vaccination rate is reliable enough for the CDC to use in its MMWR.

    But you're using the whole state's percentage and assuming it's the rate for this one town's event and drawing a very specific conclusion. That's not how percentages or statistics work. Which is probably why no public health officials or researchers (including the CDC report) came to the conclusion you did. They found it concerning that vaxxed people were testing positive and changed their mask recommendations, but in no way did they suggest vaxxed people were more likely to get infected. Vaxx rates vary dramatically by county and by demographic within states.

    51% of the Virginia population is women, but 65% of the people in my local rural Food Lion this week were men, so statistically that means that men are more likely to go grocery shopping?

    This is fair, and we don't know anything beyond the state data. Having said that, if the vaccinated rate was 74% (pretty high, but possible), then the conclusion is that the vaccine doesn't prevent infections at all. If the vaccination rate was the highest possible at 99% (it can't be 100% because there are some who were infected and not vaccinated), then the vaccine is 23% effective at preventing infection. That's the highest it could possibly be when assuming best case for the unknown details. Why focus on this case?!
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,008 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:

    www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

    They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.

    There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.

    This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.

    Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.

    As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.

    Again, the 69% is for the entire state, not for the attendees of these events in this one town. The 69% and 74% have nothing to do with each other and comparing them statistically means absolutely nothing. It never meant vaccination increases your risk tif infection, regardless of how data was collected.

    I believe the focus on where they were gathering was to stress that this one situation shouldn't be extrapolated to most people's situation. These vaccinated people put themselves into a high risk, concentrated environment for an extended period of time. So it's no reason for some of the panicked reactions many are having if they are still being mindful of spacing and ventilation in places they can't be sure everyone is vaccinated and healthy.

    We will never have vaccinated rates for the exact population directly exposed. Using the state vaccination rate is reliable enough for the CDC to use in its MMWR.

    But you're using the whole state's percentage and assuming it's the rate for this one town's event and drawing a very specific conclusion. That's not how percentages or statistics work. Which is probably why no public health officials or researchers (including the CDC report) came to the conclusion you did. They found it concerning that vaxxed people were testing positive and changed their mask recommendations, but in no way did they suggest vaxxed people were more likely to get infected. Vaxx rates vary dramatically by county and by demographic within states.

    51% of the Virginia population is women, but 65% of the people in my local rural Food Lion this week were men, so statistically that means that men are more likely to go grocery shopping?

    This is fair, and we don't know anything beyond the state data. Having said that, if the vaccinated rate was 74% (pretty high, but possible), then the conclusion is that the vaccine doesn't prevent infections at all. If the vaccination rate was the highest possible at 99% (it can't be 100% because there are some who were infected and not vaccinated), then the vaccine is 23% effective at preventing infection. That's the highest it could possibly be when assuming best case for the unknown details. Why focus on this case?!


    I can't find the first post for this subthread. Do we have a number for the total population at this event? I think we need that to calculate denominators when figuring out relative infection rates among the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, even if we're willing to make assumptions about the vax rate in that particular crowd. Also, 99% is not the highest; it could be 99.5% or 99.99% etc., which will make a significant difference in calculating the infection rates among vaxed and unvaxed if the crowd was sufficiently large. (At this point, I'm not even sure I remember where this event was. Somewhere in New England, right?)
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:

    www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

    They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.

    There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.

    This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.

    Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.

    As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.

    Again, the 69% is for the entire state, not for the attendees of these events in this one town. The 69% and 74% have nothing to do with each other and comparing them statistically means absolutely nothing. It never meant vaccination increases your risk tif infection, regardless of how data was collected.

    I believe the focus on where they were gathering was to stress that this one situation shouldn't be extrapolated to most people's situation. These vaccinated people put themselves into a high risk, concentrated environment for an extended period of time. So it's no reason for some of the panicked reactions many are having if they are still being mindful of spacing and ventilation in places they can't be sure everyone is vaccinated and healthy.

    We will never have vaccinated rates for the exact population directly exposed. Using the state vaccination rate is reliable enough for the CDC to use in its MMWR.

    But you're using the whole state's percentage and assuming it's the rate for this one town's event and drawing a very specific conclusion. That's not how percentages or statistics work. Which is probably why no public health officials or researchers (including the CDC report) came to the conclusion you did. They found it concerning that vaxxed people were testing positive and changed their mask recommendations, but in no way did they suggest vaxxed people were more likely to get infected. Vaxx rates vary dramatically by county and by demographic within states.

    51% of the Virginia population is women, but 65% of the people in my local rural Food Lion this week were men, so statistically that means that men are more likely to go grocery shopping?

    This is fair, and we don't know anything beyond the state data. Having said that, if the vaccinated rate was 74% (pretty high, but possible), then the conclusion is that the vaccine doesn't prevent infections at all. If the vaccination rate was the highest possible at 99% (it can't be 100% because there are some who were infected and not vaccinated), then the vaccine is 23% effective at preventing infection. That's the highest it could possibly be when assuming best case for the unknown details. Why focus on this case?!


    I can't find the first post for this subthread. Do we have a number for the total population at this event? I think we need that to calculate denominators when figuring out relative infection rates among the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, even if we're willing to make assumptions about the vax rate in that particular crowd. Also, 99% is not the highest; it could be 99.5% or 99.99% etc., which will make a significant difference in calculating the infection rates among vaxed and unvaxed if the crowd was sufficiently large. (At this point, I'm not even sure I remember where this event was. Somewhere in New England, right?)

    I don’t remember where I saw this but I read 109k for the event somewhere. A ton of folks.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:

    www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

    They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.

    There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.

    This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.

    Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.

    As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.

    Again, the 69% is for the entire state, not for the attendees of these events in this one town. The 69% and 74% have nothing to do with each other and comparing them statistically means absolutely nothing. It never meant vaccination increases your risk tif infection, regardless of how data was collected.

    I believe the focus on where they were gathering was to stress that this one situation shouldn't be extrapolated to most people's situation. These vaccinated people put themselves into a high risk, concentrated environment for an extended period of time. So it's no reason for some of the panicked reactions many are having if they are still being mindful of spacing and ventilation in places they can't be sure everyone is vaccinated and healthy.

    We will never have vaccinated rates for the exact population directly exposed. Using the state vaccination rate is reliable enough for the CDC to use in its MMWR.

    But you're using the whole state's percentage and assuming it's the rate for this one town's event and drawing a very specific conclusion. That's not how percentages or statistics work. Which is probably why no public health officials or researchers (including the CDC report) came to the conclusion you did. They found it concerning that vaxxed people were testing positive and changed their mask recommendations, but in no way did they suggest vaxxed people were more likely to get infected. Vaxx rates vary dramatically by county and by demographic within states.

    51% of the Virginia population is women, but 65% of the people in my local rural Food Lion this week were men, so statistically that means that men are more likely to go grocery shopping?

    This is fair, and we don't know anything beyond the state data. Having said that, if the vaccinated rate was 74% (pretty high, but possible), then the conclusion is that the vaccine doesn't prevent infections at all. If the vaccination rate was the highest possible at 99% (it can't be 100% because there are some who were infected and not vaccinated), then the vaccine is 23% effective at preventing infection. That's the highest it could possibly be when assuming best case for the unknown details.
    Why focus on this case?!

    The media focused on the case because it was dramatic and easy to make it sound scary. The CDC focused on it because it was an outlier and they wanted to understand it.

    The report says that 69% of the folks who tested positive were vaxxed. It says nothing about how many vaxxed (or unvaxxed) people tested negative. There were likely thousands of people there at some point. And I believe there were 400 some odd who were infected? I'm not sure I'm remembering that correct.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,008 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:

    www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

    They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.

    There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.

    This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.

    Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.

    As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.

    Again, the 69% is for the entire state, not for the attendees of these events in this one town. The 69% and 74% have nothing to do with each other and comparing them statistically means absolutely nothing. It never meant vaccination increases your risk tif infection, regardless of how data was collected.

    I believe the focus on where they were gathering was to stress that this one situation shouldn't be extrapolated to most people's situation. These vaccinated people put themselves into a high risk, concentrated environment for an extended period of time. So it's no reason for some of the panicked reactions many are having if they are still being mindful of spacing and ventilation in places they can't be sure everyone is vaccinated and healthy.

    We will never have vaccinated rates for the exact population directly exposed. Using the state vaccination rate is reliable enough for the CDC to use in its MMWR.

    But you're using the whole state's percentage and assuming it's the rate for this one town's event and drawing a very specific conclusion. That's not how percentages or statistics work. Which is probably why no public health officials or researchers (including the CDC report) came to the conclusion you did. They found it concerning that vaxxed people were testing positive and changed their mask recommendations, but in no way did they suggest vaxxed people were more likely to get infected. Vaxx rates vary dramatically by county and by demographic within states.

    51% of the Virginia population is women, but 65% of the people in my local rural Food Lion this week were men, so statistically that means that men are more likely to go grocery shopping?

    This is fair, and we don't know anything beyond the state data. Having said that, if the vaccinated rate was 74% (pretty high, but possible), then the conclusion is that the vaccine doesn't prevent infections at all. If the vaccination rate was the highest possible at 99% (it can't be 100% because there are some who were infected and not vaccinated), then the vaccine is 23% effective at preventing infection. That's the highest it could possibly be when assuming best case for the unknown details. Why focus on this case?!


    I can't find the first post for this subthread. Do we have a number for the total population at this event? I think we need that to calculate denominators when figuring out relative infection rates among the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, even if we're willing to make assumptions about the vax rate in that particular crowd. Also, 99% is not the highest; it could be 99.5% or 99.99% etc., which will make a significant difference in calculating the infection rates among vaxed and unvaxed if the crowd was sufficiently large. (At this point, I'm not even sure I remember where this event was. Somewhere in New England, right?)

    I don’t remember where I saw this but I read 109k for the event somewhere. A ton of folks.

    Thank you.
    I tracked down what I thought I was remembering as the post with the raw number of cases, but it was from Australia, and I think this subthread stemmed from a U.S. event, in New England, so I still don't have the raw numbers on cases. Maybe that's a sign from the universe that it's time to move on. :smile:
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:

    www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

    They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.

    There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.

    This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.

    Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.

    As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.

    Again, the 69% is for the entire state, not for the attendees of these events in this one town. The 69% and 74% have nothing to do with each other and comparing them statistically means absolutely nothing. It never meant vaccination increases your risk tif infection, regardless of how data was collected.

    I believe the focus on where they were gathering was to stress that this one situation shouldn't be extrapolated to most people's situation. These vaccinated people put themselves into a high risk, concentrated environment for an extended period of time. So it's no reason for some of the panicked reactions many are having if they are still being mindful of spacing and ventilation in places they can't be sure everyone is vaccinated and healthy.

    We will never have vaccinated rates for the exact population directly exposed. Using the state vaccination rate is reliable enough for the CDC to use in its MMWR.

    But you're using the whole state's percentage and assuming it's the rate for this one town's event and drawing a very specific conclusion. That's not how percentages or statistics work. Which is probably why no public health officials or researchers (including the CDC report) came to the conclusion you did. They found it concerning that vaxxed people were testing positive and changed their mask recommendations, but in no way did they suggest vaxxed people were more likely to get infected. Vaxx rates vary dramatically by county and by demographic within states.

    51% of the Virginia population is women, but 65% of the people in my local rural Food Lion this week were men, so statistically that means that men are more likely to go grocery shopping?

    This is fair, and we don't know anything beyond the state data. Having said that, if the vaccinated rate was 74% (pretty high, but possible), then the conclusion is that the vaccine doesn't prevent infections at all. If the vaccination rate was the highest possible at 99% (it can't be 100% because there are some who were infected and not vaccinated), then the vaccine is 23% effective at preventing infection. That's the highest it could possibly be when assuming best case for the unknown details. Why focus on this case?!


    I can't find the first post for this subthread. Do we have a number for the total population at this event? I think we need that to calculate denominators when figuring out relative infection rates among the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, even if we're willing to make assumptions about the vax rate in that particular crowd. Also, 99% is not the highest; it could be 99.5% or 99.99% etc., which will make a significant difference in calculating the infection rates among vaxed and unvaxed if the crowd was sufficiently large. (At this point, I'm not even sure I remember where this event was. Somewhere in New England, right?)

    Sure, was sticking with whole numbers. We don't have a count for the whole event, nor would it change the conclusions discussed thus far. A vaccine that is only 25.99% effective still makes this case a statistical outlier (no way was the crowd big enough for even 99% even if all of the unvaccinated got infected, but I'll bite on your decimals).

    It was Provincetown, MA.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited August 2021
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:

    www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

    They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.

    There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.

    This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.

    Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.

    As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.

    Again, the 69% is for the entire state, not for the attendees of these events in this one town. The 69% and 74% have nothing to do with each other and comparing them statistically means absolutely nothing. It never meant vaccination increases your risk tif infection, regardless of how data was collected.

    I believe the focus on where they were gathering was to stress that this one situation shouldn't be extrapolated to most people's situation. These vaccinated people put themselves into a high risk, concentrated environment for an extended period of time. So it's no reason for some of the panicked reactions many are having if they are still being mindful of spacing and ventilation in places they can't be sure everyone is vaccinated and healthy.

    We will never have vaccinated rates for the exact population directly exposed. Using the state vaccination rate is reliable enough for the CDC to use in its MMWR.

    But you're using the whole state's percentage and assuming it's the rate for this one town's event and drawing a very specific conclusion. That's not how percentages or statistics work. Which is probably why no public health officials or researchers (including the CDC report) came to the conclusion you did. They found it concerning that vaxxed people were testing positive and changed their mask recommendations, but in no way did they suggest vaxxed people were more likely to get infected. Vaxx rates vary dramatically by county and by demographic within states.

    51% of the Virginia population is women, but 65% of the people in my local rural Food Lion this week were men, so statistically that means that men are more likely to go grocery shopping?

    This is fair, and we don't know anything beyond the state data. Having said that, if the vaccinated rate was 74% (pretty high, but possible), then the conclusion is that the vaccine doesn't prevent infections at all. If the vaccination rate was the highest possible at 99% (it can't be 100% because there are some who were infected and not vaccinated), then the vaccine is 23% effective at preventing infection. That's the highest it could possibly be when assuming best case for the unknown details. Why focus on this case?!


    I can't find the first post for this subthread. Do we have a number for the total population at this event? I think we need that to calculate denominators when figuring out relative infection rates among the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, even if we're willing to make assumptions about the vax rate in that particular crowd. Also, 99% is not the highest; it could be 99.5% or 99.99% etc., which will make a significant difference in calculating the infection rates among vaxed and unvaxed if the crowd was sufficiently large. (At this point, I'm not even sure I remember where this event was. Somewhere in New England, right?)

    Sure, was sticking with whole numbers. We don't have a count for the whole event, nor would it change the conclusions discussed thus far. A vaccine that is only 25.99% effective still makes this case a statistical outlier (no way was the crowd big enough for even 99% even if all of the unvaccinated got infected, but I'll bite on your decimals).

    It was Provincetown, MA.

    To get that 25%, are you assuming the 459 people who tested positive were the only people at the event?

    If 5000 people were there, and let's say 90% of them were vaccinated, that's 4500 vaccinated people. I'm gonna round numbers, so say 350 (rounding up 75% of 450 total infected) of those vaxxed people were infected. That's just under 8% of the vaxxed people getting infected, or a 92% effective rate at preventing infection, with a 99.1% rate at preventing hospitalization, and a 100% effective rate at preventing death.

    Obviously this assumes everyone was exposed, which we can't know if that's the case or not. And assumes no one whose vaxxed has a compromised immune system

    It's tens of thousands who attend: https://ptowntourism.com/events/bear-week/ (Although that's come to P-town, and other sources suggest official Bear Week attendees is around 10K.)