Covid: the shape of things to come

[Luftmensch]

if everyone gets boosters right before the Omicron wave

We did that by accident during Delta. The reason was incompetence but the effect was useful. It just so happened that the vaccine taps opened during last year's Delta wave. Some people called that 'real-time vaccination' - the implication being, people had maximum vaccine efficacy during the wave.

Like I said in the previous post, many people are still waiting for their 4-month period to end so that they can get a booster. Since Omicron took over in December, we missed the opportunity for another round of 'real-time' vaccination.

 

[Luftmensch]

Holy crap, I'm used to clearly structured literature, with an intro, background, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusion, discussion, references and all that...this reads as if some politician wrote an article...I mean 'estimated impact' 'does not do well' 'chief predictions of pure theories' PAH Hogwash and poppycock ;-)

Writing is half the battle right??

 

[ReiHamono]

Every day more interesting data is released

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21260210v2.full

 

[Barmoley]

"this didnt work"

well that's a matter of perspective.

was it popular? no. were white parents having absolute meltdowns that black kids were going to their schools? yes. was it so politically toxic that the current president of the united states partnered with southern segregationists to abolish it? also yes.

however, in terms of having positive education outcomes, bussing actually did work.

it not working is one of those "obvious" things that has become "true" with decades of people simply repeating it without ever attaching any evidence to it.

so did it work? again depends on your perspective.

also you claim just throwing money at it doesnt work have we ever done that? has it ever been the case that black schools were funded as well as white schools? because I used to work in education and I can tell you from actually going through big public school district budgets that as of a decade ago when I started the per student funding gap in some states could get as high as 10k per student per year (e.g. Pennsylvania). maybe we could try actually throwing money at the problem for once. and I dont mean, and I cannot be any clearer about this, throwing the money at the education grifter companies like the testing companies, textbook companies, in-school police forces, etc. I mean give all the schools the same amount of money per student and see what happens throw money at it.

Like I said, unfortunately this program did not work. Were there some positive outcomes, I hope so and it seems like there should be. Very hard to prove one way or the other, overall it was not a success, unless you have some proof to the contrary. This program won‘t be reinstated, most likely.

As far as just throwing money at the schools, it is not enough. For one, kids and teachers need to feel safe inside and outside of the schools for best learning results.

 

[MarcelNL]

Sure,

Down Under that means a full course of approved vaccines (one does J&J or two doses of AZ, Pfizer etc). Boosters remain optional for now... Part of that is likely due to the fact that we had such a slow roll out of vaccines last year (stroll-out). Because a large cohort accessed vaccinations late, our middle aged and younger population will only eligible for boosters this month or next. The boosters are here and people are willing, it is just a matter of waiting four months.

The vaccination data is being recorded by our Government. The public healthcare scheme (Medicare) has all of this information. In theory we should be able to retrospectively analyse the effect various vaccination outcomes (number of doses, timing, prior health conditions). In practice the data is probably difficult to access and match due to privacy concerns and the glorious navigability of various IT systems cobbled together using 1990's technology that was patched ad infinitum.

The EU have taken an interesting and smart route. Again, certificates are issued for a full course of approved vaccines (one or two dose schedules). As I understand it, the interesting addition is that the vaccine certificates expire after 9 months after your last shot. I believe you need boosters to renew the certificate? Interestingly I dont think they have determined an expiry period for the booster shots but are reserving the right to do so.

from the outside it may seem that the EU is making smart moves, yet the execution differs vastly per country. In my country we probably are using the same IT vendors as the Aus Govt...
Getting vaccinated/boostered officially requires receiving an invitation which I received yesterday where I made the appointment for the booster 3 weeks ago...online, after 6 attempts (completing 6 pages of questions every time) only managing to get through several days after it was announced my age cohort now is eligible, I was finally able to find a vaccination slot in the town I live in and not some 30 km away. Anyway, I got the booster and I'm fine, but I'm sure the approach Belgium and the UK are taking, jabs first paperwork later is a smarter route to the ultimate objective...a 'digitally challenged' person likely is unable to cut through the hurdles, and will need to wait until the paper invitation arrives and has to cope with the phone system to book an appointment, that phone system is almost always in overload and the underlying IT infra structure is the same..Alternative is to wait until the vaccination location switches to get jabbed without appointment, I reckon there are plenty frail/olderly that will wait for that which likely is not in the interest of their health.

The son of my best friend has a student side job working as a phone operator for that appt system, and he let us know that he gets 3 calls a day at most (but gets paid a full day, so some good comes out of it) even on days when the system is out of whack due to overload, so the issue is not staffing but the IT underneath.

Still with the ridiculously late decision to do anything and the very late start due to our national need to overcomplicate things we're now sprinting to finish before Omikron does, an exciting match we should not need to be in.

 

[knifeknight]

Every day more interesting data is released

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21260210v2.full
View attachment 160248
View attachment 160249

....and more....

Denmark...majority of Omikron cases has completed their vaccination scheme...

Source: https://files.ssi.dk/covid19/omikron/statusrapport/rapport-omikronvarianten-31122021-ct18

 

[MarcelNL]

I fail to see the point you're trying to make/imply?

Surely it is not new that when vaccinated and not boostered (newly invented word for re-vaccinated) the likelihood of getting Covid and especially Omikron is high by now and even when boostered Omikron can still hit you but that is far less likely than without the booster.

 

[riba]

Every day more interesting data is released

View attachment 160249

Interesting indeed.

The rest of the report is not interesting though?

For instance table 3 and 4 from the same report. The report also provides some context and considerations.

and "Results:
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.
The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated individuals. "

 

[chefwp]

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdMcVquY

 

[ian]

Every day more interesting data is released

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21260210v2.full
View attachment 160248
View attachment 160249

Can we please stop taking single tables out of context and pretending like they're earth shattering revelations? The report containing that table is basically all about how vaccines are effective at preventing hospitalizations and death. Here's the summary of the results of the paper... note the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Edit: Ah, I saw @riba posted the same thing during the lengthy amount of time I was writing this.

....and more....

Denmark...majority of Omikron cases has completed their vaccination scheme...

View attachment 160304
Source: https://files.ssi.dk/covid19/omikron/statusrapport/rapport-omikronvarianten-31122021-ct18

This is similar. It's true that during the time period in which these statistics were collected, the % of unvaccinated people was in the high teens, so they're underrepresented among Omicron cases above. But this could just as well be because unvaccinated people are less likely to get tested. People who actually know about these things aren't saying (to my knowledge) that having the vaccine increases your chance of infection, it's just politicians and certain reporters who look at isolated bits of data without any context and try to draw naive conclusions. If you can actually point to a reputable study or research article that explicitly supports these conclusions, I'll pay attention.

 

[knifeknight]

I'm wondering who is naive....

First they said the vaccination would confer immunity and prevent covid from being transmitted.
Then it was "vaccination prevents you from getting seriously ill" and reduces the probability to die of covid.
Now it seems your chance of catching covid is higher if you are fully vaccinated.

Furthermore Omikron seems to be much less severe than the previous variants and the vaccination efficacy is nearly nil.

So why should someone get vaccinated ?

I am fully vaccinated and got my booster shot as well. The results were: tinnitus, severe permanent nausea, thrombosis in the left leg and a pulmonary embolism. I nearly died. My chance to catching covid is the same (or worse) now as it was beeing unvaccinated. I'm really wondering, if I have done the right thing.

You know what is meant by a "pink elephant" ?

And now: beer and potatoe chips and let the shitstorm brew over me

 

[MarcelNL]

I'm sorry for your experience after the vaccination and I understand you wonder about the risk benefit ratio of YOUR situation!

Though aside from that you are aware that nobody ever made statements about vaccine efficacy with regards to contracting future variants (unknown at the time of creating the vaccine)? By now we know that vaccines do not guarantee getting Covid but they do protect against severe effects quite effectively.

 

[ian]

Now it seems your chance of catching covid is higher if you are fully vaccinated.

For this to be convincing, I'd need to see some experts that have written a study saying this, not just a data table that can be interpreted to say this if you ignore possible outside factors.

Furthermore Omikron seems to be much less severe than the previous variants and the vaccination efficacy is nearly nil.

They lower your chance of getting hospitalized/dead significantly.

The results were: tinnitus, severe permanent nausea, thrombosis in the left leg and a pulmonary embolism. I nearly died.

I'm very sorry to hear that. That's terrible. I would totally be wary of vaccines if I'd had that happen to me soon after.

 

[knifeknight]

They lower your chance of getting hospitalized/dead significantly.

The used vaccins are still tailored for the Wuhan-Variant. Your argument may be right for Alpha and Delta variants, but it's not for Omikron (take a look at Israel).

It's senseless. Omikron get's prevalent and the infection rates (better: positive test rates) are surging, but the vaccines are much less effective against Omikron. So what's the solution: let's vaccinate much more....third shot, fourth...and so on. Sorry, but that's crazy....

 

[user 16756]

Now it seems your chance of catching covid is higher if you are fully vaccinated.

 

[KingShapton]

The used vaccins are still tailored for the Wuhan-Variant. Your argument may be right for Alpha and Delta variants, but it's not for Omikron (take a look at Israel).

It's senseless. Omikron get's prevalent and the infection rates (better: positive test rates) are surging, but the vaccines are much less effective against Omikron. So what's the solution: let's vaccinate much more....third shot, fourth...and so on. Sorry, but that's crazy....

It is crazy to forego a chance against a severe course of Covid or to accept hospitalization due to Covid.

The vaccines available are not perfect and, especially with Omikron, they are not helping as well as expected. Still, they help and it's better than nothing.

Your serious side effects from the vaccination are bad and I do not wish that to anyone! The fact remains that with every vaccination there is a (very small) residual risk of serious side effects. But the fact remains that with vaccinations you have a better chance of avoiding an infection with Covid, or that you have a better chance of surviving an infection with Covid undamaged.

As for the frequency of vaccinations, you think it's crazy that they are thinking about a fourth vaccination ?!

I think it's crazy that the hospitals in Germany are full of Covid patients, most of whom are not vaccinated! And I learned that from the staff at a hospital in Germany, not from a dubious internet source.

I am 50 years old and my health is in poor health. From my point of view, vaccinations are currently the best protection we have. Not perfect, but something! And if it were necessary to protect myself, my wife, my family and my friends, I would also get a vaccination every month. As long as it is necessary!

 

[ian]

View attachment 160324

Is this supposed to be about the fact that there are a lot more people that are vaccinated than unvaccinated? This isn't relevant to the arguments they are making. Interpreted without thinking about other factors like how likely vaxed vs unvaxed people are to get tested etc..., the data they cite does indicate that being vaccinated raises your chance of getting covid. It just doesn't make sense to interpret it that way imo.

 

[MarcelNL]

Work is ongoing to create a vaccin more geared to Omikron, after a while this will not be much different from the flu vaccination where a prediction is made every year...at least that is the current hope!

Until then, Vaccines are our best protection just see the HUGE difference in hospitalization rates and severity/deaths between vaxxed and non vaxxed even with Omikron, nobody can yet make any prediction about vaccine efficacy for variants beyond those we know now and we're only starting to learn to know Omikron.

 

[user 16756]

Is this supposed to be about the fact that there are a lot more people that are vaccinated than unvaccinated? This isn't relevant to the arguments they are making. Interpreted without thinking about other factors like how likely vaxed vs unvaxed people are to get tested etc..., the data they cite does indicate that being vaccinated raises your chance of getting covid. It just doesn't make sense to interpret it that way imo.

huh?

there's no way to calculate from the table he posted what the actual rates are. Im looking through the pdf they dont provide that either. it's just counts.

how does the data in anyway indicate you are more LIKELY to get covid if you are vaccinated? it merely says that more vaccinated people are getting covid as far as I can tell. help me understand what Im missing here

 

[ian]

(take a look at Israel).

Do you have some stats in mind? I'm not very informed about what's happening there at the moment. I did a brief google search, but all I got were things like this:

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/coronavirus/article-692335

 

[ian]

huh?

there's no way to calculate from the table he posted what the actual rates are. Im looking through the pdf they dont provide that either. it's just counts.

how does the data in anyway indicate you are more LIKELY to get covid if you are vaccinated? it merely says that more vaccinated people are getting covid as far as I can tell. help me understand what Im missing here

I'm not claiming some kind of sophisticated analysis. Just saying that if you only look at Omicron cases, the table says that 8.5% of them come from unvaxed people. However, the percentage of the population that was unvaxed was more like 18% during the period of the study. So, the table says that unvaxed people are under-represented among verified covid infections. That make sense, or am I confused?

 

[user 16756]

I'm not claiming some kind of sophisticated analysis. Just saying that if you only look at Omicron cases, the table says that 8.5% of them come from unvaxed people. However, the percentage of the population that was unvaxed was more like 18% during the period of the study. So, the table says that unvaxed people are under-represented among verified covid infections. That make sense, or am I confused?

I mean sure you can say "vaccinated people seem overrepresented in the omicron cases" but this is a universe away from "Now it seems your chance of catching covid is higher if you are fully vaccinated"

that's just not how that works.

firstly, the two groups are hard to compare that directly because there is massive self selection bias wrt vaccines that would include health, behavior, age, location, etc. secondly, again we need to know the likelihood of getting covid in the area in general and then we can calculate it.

irrespective of how the math actually works out, you have to actually calculate it to say. even if you smooth over some of the subtlties which is ok whatever but this is just a fundamental misunderstanding of how to think about occurences that Im trying to point out here. that's been a big sticking point for me all along is people just want to say stuff and they dont even qualify it. they just act like "oh my observation must generalize".

 

[ian]

I mean sure you can say "vaccinated people seem overrepresented in the omicron cases" but this is a universe away from "Now it seems your chance of catching covid is higher if you are fully vaccinated"

that's just not how that works.

firstly, the two groups are hard to compare that directly because there is massive self selection bias wrt vaccines that would include health, behavior, age, location, etc. secondly, again we need to know the likelihood of getting covid in the area in general and then we can calculate it.

irrespective of how the math actually works out, you have to actually calculate it to say. even if you smooth over some of the subtlties which is ok whatever but this is just a fundamental misunderstanding of how to think about occurences that Im trying to point out here. that's been a big sticking point for me all along is people just want to say stuff and they dont even qualify it. they just act like "oh my observation must generalize".

Absolutely, I was just saying that the problem is not that they’re making an elementary mistake with their probabilities, it’s that they’re not looking at the whole picture.

 

[user 16756]

Absolutely, I was just saying that the problem is not that they’re making a elementary mistake with their probabilities, it’s that they’re not looking at the whole picture.

but theyre kind of the same thing. a spurious conclusion based on looking at too little.

the point of posting bayes' theorem is not to say "hey here is how you actually calculate this", it's to point out that these likelihoods are conditional and you have to think about more rates than just "the percentage of cases in a period of time that are vaccinated people"

it's the same as if I posted to the picture of the airplane with the bullet markers to make a point about survivorship bias.

 

[jankdc]

she was warning me that over 80% of folks who got a booster were getting Covid and that natural immunity is so much better

I know people that got Covid, didn't get vaccinated, and then got Omicron.

 

[MarcelNL]

I know people that got Covid, didn't get vaccinated, and then got Omicron.

For sure, the issue is that going through a case of Covid and getting a positive PCR does not say anything about the level of immune response for a next case.

 

[ian]

but theyre kind of the same thing. a spurious conclusion based on looking at too little.

the point of posting bayes' theorem is not to say "hey here is how you actually calculate this", it's to point out that these likelihoods are conditional and you have to think about more rates than just "the percentage of cases in a period of time that are vaccinated people"

it's the same as if I posted to the picture of the airplane with the bullet markers to make a point about survivorship bias.

Fair enough. I interpreted it as referring to the case A = vaxed, B = infected, since that's the case directly related to the table. In general, I find posting math or latin is a less effective way to communicate with people if you can do it just as well in English. Fewer people will understand what you mean, and it has the air of "I know these fancy words and symbols, so your arguments are dumb," even if that's not the intent.

My cats are fighting on the floor next to me. Makes me want to fight too! Fighting is fun! Rrrrow

Heh, anyway, I think we agree on basically everything here.

 

[MarcelNL]

Now my kittens are fighting too....I just clicked the tube amp on to warm up but I probably have to kick them out of my speaker a few dozen times

 

[user 16756]

Fair enough. I interpreted it as referring to the case A = vaxed, B = infected, since that's the case directly related to the table. In general, I find posting math or latin is a less effective way to communicate with people if you can do it just as well in English. Fewer people will understand what you mean, and it has the air of "I know these fancy words and symbols, so your arguments are dumb," even if that's not the intent.

My cats are fighting on the floor next to me. Makes me want to fight too! Fighting is fun! Rrrrow

Heh, anyway, I think we agree on basically everything here.

oof, kinda just assume people are exposed to bayes' theorem in high school. I say that because not only was I but the kiddo I just put through hs had it and she was on normal track math.

and despite how one particularly irate person interprets where Im coming from, I actually dont assume anyone is stupid. what I do think is true though is the KKF demographic HEAVILY overlaps with people who havent been told 'no' very much in their lives. Ive said it before and I really believe this if I went into BoH and started telling people **** left and right even though I am not an expert on how restaurants runs they'd probably respond in the same way I do re statistics.

perhaps even more surprisingly, I dont view working in a quantitative field as being evidence that someone is "smart" anyway.

 

[ian]

oof, kinda just assume people are exposed to bayes' theorem in high school. I say that because not only was I but the kiddo I just put through hs had it and she was on normal track math.

I wonder if it's standard material nowadays. I'm not sure I was ever taught that in high school, but who knows. I can barely remember high school. In any case, I think it's more that if you ask a random person on the street what P(A|B) means they won't remember, even if they were taught it at some point.

Heh, I just asked my wife what she makes of the pic you posted. She says: "There are lots of P's and A's and B's! There's a fraction on the right. On the left, I know you're supposed to do the stuff in the parentheses before you multiply by P, but I don't know what | means."

Full disclosure: she was a poetry PhD, now a therapist. So not many formal calculations of probabilities in her life.