How death rates from Covid-19 differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated • Hacker News Board

Re: How death rates from Covid-19 differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated

#261

Post by concinds » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 2:20 AM UTC

benchaney wrote: post #206

concinds wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't only mishandling of data by statistical analysts, it is merely sufficient that government data be improperly recorded (as was famous last year, when people saw Covid statistics miraculously jump down on weekends and back up on Mondays in several countries) or that vaccinated/unvaccinated populations were misclassified (for example, by only defining people as vaccinated 2 weeks after they had their s…

The issue is that there is no actual evidence that the data is being recorded improperly. Anyone can come up with a just so story to describe how the data could be corrupted, but writing such a blog post does not in fact put a burden on the people doing actual analysis to refute the claim.

Not how it works. Burdens of proof work in courts of law, but you can't make a statistical analysis without addressing whether the data being used is sound.

You'll see a bunch of first-year undergrad papers rely on mediocre data, and then do all sorts of straight-from-textbook statistical analysis of the data, with p-values computed to 5 digits, and then discuss the data's mediocrity in a "Discussion" section. That's a common trope. But if the data is mediocre, you don't have a paper in the first place! Your p-values are junk, so are the abstract and conclusion, and you can't hand-wave it away by bringing up easily-addressed problems with the data in the Discussion section; should have addressed them in the first place. A great physics prof said: "any figure without an uncertainty is meaningless". So is any statistical analysis that doesn't validate the data it relies on.

But all that's besides the point, since the article I linked gives good reasons to believe the original government data does display issues in the first place.

Re: How death rates from Covid-19 differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated

#262

Post by Godel_unicode » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 2:21 AM UTC

mint2 wrote: post #230

Godel_unicode wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This observation always really irritates me; making no comment about this particular instance, data jumping around doesn't necessarily mean it's noisy. Some datasets have high variance.

Did you look at the USA data for 12 year olds?

Extensively.

Re: How death rates from Covid-19 differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated

#263

Post by concinds » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

gardncl wrote: post #92

dougmwne wrote: post #71

Dear HN, should I, a man under 40 get a booster shot? How many months after my second dose should I get it? What are the best resources to answer this question? This information is scary hard to get for someone who wants science, not politics.

>What are the best resources to answer this question? Your physician. Not hacker news.

Your average family physician reads exactly zero published papers per year, and would rely on Googling and reading health authority summary pages or media sources. If the goal is convincing skeptical family members with hard facts, searching the scientific literature oneself is likely much more effective.

Re: How death rates from Covid-19 differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated

#264

Post by Jill_the_Pill » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 2:57 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #111

rob74 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that vaccination protects you from having a bad case of Covid, but it doesn't protect you from getting infected and infecting others. So, if the vaccinated carry on as if it's 2019, the disease will jump from one vaccinated person to the next until it finds an unvaccinated person.

I encourage everyone eligible to get vaccinated, but since the virus is now endemic everyone will eventually be exposed. You can't seriously expect people to tolerate restrictions indefinitely.

We wear seatbelts. And bras.

Re: How death rates from Covid-19 differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated

#265

Post by PathOfEclipse » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 3:03 AM UTC

Yoric wrote: post #178

hagbard_c wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually debatable given that "fully" vaccinated people who get infected - a so-called 'breakthrough infection' - seem to transmit SARS2 at close to the same rate as those unvaccinated [1,2]: fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts Whether th…

Well, as confirmed by your [1], vaccinated people can transmit the virus during a much shorter duration. That's bound to severely decrease R among vaccinated crowds.

My belief is that people generally quarantine after they show symptoms, so the dangerous period is the presymptomatic phase, and the length of that phase appears to be similar between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. So it's possible vaccinations don't majorly lower R.

Re: How death rates from Covid-19 differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated

#266

Post by ifyoubuildit » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 3:35 AM UTC

sciurus wrote: post #239

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vaccinated people are significantly less likely to contract the virus Recently vaccinated people are significantly less likely to contract covid than totally naive folks. Efficacy against infection seems to wane pretty heavily over time. > Breakthrough infections are significantly less contagious than infections in nonimmune persons This seems to be in dispute (by a study referenced in your linked article). I think…

It sounds like you agree that "vaccination doesn't protect you from getting infected and infecting others", the statement I was responding to, is wrong. I think fixating on the limits of vaccination rather then the benefits is misleading. Vaccination works, yet many people think it does not due to this rhetoric.

I think it's not as simple as that. I think a large part of the difficulties we're having around getting everyone on the same page is that people are saying things that they want to be true, and even are true if you squint a little, but can reasonably be read as not true.

"Vaccines work" (or the constantly repeated "these vaccines are safe and (remarkably/fantastically/stupendously) effective) isn't trying to educate you on the vaccines so you can make the right decision on your own, it's meant to get you to take the vaccine. They're stronger statements than are justified, and they make people suspicious as a result.

Some people are going to read " vaccinations work" as "you take this vaccine and you can't get covid, can't spread covid", which is not even close to accurate. We're all better off (IMO) being honest and humble and careful with our language, so we don't get caught overplaying our case and further galvanizing people.

Re: How death rates from Covid-19 differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated

#267

Post by moistly » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 3:43 AM UTC

Godel_unicode wrote: post #169

zwieback wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, convincing people who think the entire thing is orchestrated by dark forces is pointless. At this point, what I'd like to see: a) accept natural immunity alongside vaccination status, probably need some kind of antibody count test for that to work b) "incentives" for vaccinated population, e.g. 90% discount on COVID treatments while unvaccinated pay full price

There are several studies saying that vaccines are beneficial even for people who have natural immunity from an infection. Also, if we have learned anything the last two years it's that at a population level people flatly cannot handle nuance. Anything other than a flat "you must have proof of vaccination" isn't going to work.

One of those studies on the infected-then-vaccinated set (or, at least, an author of the study, being interviewed) claims “superhuman immunity” — effective against a spectrum of SARS viruses. Presumably the reverse (vaccinated-then-infected) is not true.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/09/07/1033677...

I will say that I do not particularly trust NPR any more; they have misreported events in direct contradiction of clear video and audio feeds of the events.

Re: How death rates from Covid-19 differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated

#268

Post by moistly » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 3:45 AM UTC

Minor49er wrote: post #44

bastardoperator wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much this. If the science and deaths aren't compelling enough, nothing will be.

The science and deaths due to the vaccine, or the unvaccinated?

Sometimes reading HN comments feels like smashing my head with a brick. Stunning.

Re: How death rates from Covid-19 differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated

#269

Post by chrismcb » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 4:30 AM UTC

pengaru wrote: post #104

listless wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. I am double vaxxed Moderna and got it. I was bad sick, but not as bad as my unvaxxed friends who got it. But I’m sure I spread that sucker all over the place. And by the way, the mask made no difference In my case. I’m convinced it’s a fresh N95 everyday or you’re wasting your time.

> the mask made no difference In my case How can you possibly know such a thing? The mask is more about reducing your spread to others, do you have reliable data on how many people you would have infected in lieu of masking? No, you don't.

Because a lot of the studies back that comment up.

Re: How death rates from Covid-19 differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated

#270

Post by angelzen » Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 4:34 AM UTC

eqvinox wrote: post #229

nradov wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encourage everyone eligible to get vaccinated, but hyperbole isn't helpful. Occupying a hospital bed won't doom the rest of us. In any given year only a small fraction of the population gets admitted to a hospital for any reason.

> Occupying a hospital bed won't doom the rest of us. https://www.intensivregister.de/#/aktuelle-lage/zeitreihen Germany is getting quite close to exhausting ICU beds and ventilators. Non-"essential" procedures have already been postponed.

"Gesamtzahl gemeldeter Intensivbetten (Betreibbare Betten und Notfallreserve" chart shows the ICU stats over time. Occupied beds are roughly a flatline around 20k, with a small 3k seasonal (covid?) variation. OTOH, the total number of available ICU beds have fallen from ~32k to ~24k, 25%. We are all nervous to see how the medical system will weather the winter covid waves, sadly the covid pandemic is far from over. But I'm confused: the data indicates the system has lost significant ICU capacity, a few times more than the seasonal (covid?) utilization variation. What is going on? Is this something Germans also openly worry about?