Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Covid-19 breakthrough data

coronavirus.health.ny.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 180 posts

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#171

Post by radford-neal »

javagram wrote: post #170
radford-neal wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked study does NOT say that past infection is less protective than two vaccine doses. It says that getting vaccinated in addition to having a past infection provides additional protection. It says nothing about the protection provided by past infection only versus two doses without past infection. The CDC issued a false press release misrepresenting the conclusions of this study, at https://www.cdc.gov/media/r…

Just looked at the press release and there doesn’t appear to be any misrepresentation involved. The press release clearly talks about the benefits of vaccination even after a previous COVID-19 infection, just as the study did. CDC credibility seems intact here, but online anti vaxxer credibility continues to decline…

The title of the press release is "New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection". That is false. The first paragraph of the release says "These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone". That is false.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#172

Post by argvargc »

rsynnott wrote: post #161
argvargc wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends on which definition of the vaccine you've chosen to adopt. As the product has not changed, only the manufacturers claims about it, the original definition is the most applicable in terms of its success or failure. What's misleading is to pretend that a product, sold as a "vaccine", sold as originally possessing many of the commonly-understood qualifiers of the use of that term, turns out in reality to po…

> It does not vaccinate against the disease. It does not vaccinate against being infected, harmed or killed by the disease It reduces the chances of all three, and _dramatically_ reduces the chances of the last two. That's what vaccines do. Now, it's not a _great_ vaccine. There are a couple of magic bullet near-100% effective vaccines (for instance, only 3% of people with the MMR vaccine exposed to Measles will get…

Even the CEO of Pfizer recently stated 1 or 2 shots "offer very limited protection, if any" (my emphasis), whilst saying the booster offers good protection. But the booster is the same substance... the formulation hasn't changed. He's literally saying 1 shot of it does nothing, 2 shots of it does nothing, but 3 shots of it is magically great. (And I still remember a time when "fully vaccinated" meant you were done at two, and anyone saying there'd be more was a conspiracy theorist.)

Meanwhile in Queensland which had suffered 29 deaths since the beginning of the pandemic, the health minister just announced that 7 more people died overnight, and they were all vaccinated - but not "boosted". Ie, two shots of, as the Pfizer CEO put it, a vaccine of "limited effectiveness, if any". So there we have it, two shots and not three and you're dead, apparently. Who's clogging up the ICU's there?

And have a look out of the proverbial window. Almost everywhere there's more cases, more hospitalisations and more deaths. That is, if the vaccines worked: they'd work.

But they haven't, and don't. In many places we're in a worse position than before we had them.

That is, they're failures.

Meanwhile things that do actually work, and even have their mechanisms of action completely understood underlying why they work, are sidelined, suppressed or even banned.

If indeed in Ireland you have "95% vaccination", why do you have any cases, hospitalisations or deaths? If it doesn't work at 95% take-up, when does it work? How can the R-value even do anything remotely ICU-clogging with a single digit percentage? On the surface, it doesn't add up.

But a little deeper, and it maybe begins to... because when you're counting "vaccinated" people, be sure not to mix up who is "vaccinated" and who isn't, according to the latest shift in the goal posts. In some places for example, if you have been "fully vaccinated" but not had a third shot, you're considered "unvaccinated" again, and will die in that category. Further, were you "fully vaccinated", by whatever definition, but have only been so for 14 days, and die, in some places indeed you'll also die considered "unvaccinated".

Or to put it another way, how many of the people dying and clogging ICU's never had any shot at all, and how many did?

And why?

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#173

Post by awb »

kcplate wrote: post #169
awb wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder how under-reported mild breakthrough cases are, due to self testing? I bet Google & Facebook have enough metadata to measure it more accurately. I personally know of a dozen or so unreported positives (both tested positive and presumed positive), compared to two reported positives.

Is it really important to report mild cases determined by self testing? Frankly if I have the sniffles due to a cold, allergies, or even covid…I simply don’t see why the government needs to know. If I am not utilizing health care resources and self isolating, its nobody’s damned business but my own.

It’s useful for virologists and policy makers to understand the transmission rate of COVID and its accompanying variants since it’s a novel virus.

If unreported cases are 10-50x reported cases, then the hospitalization and death rates become minuscule. And then it means we might actually be closer to natural herd immunity.

Point taken about balancing this with a right to privacy though and I think that’s why no one is seriously pushing for reporting at that level and why it is optional to report your at home test results. The use case of contact tracing is long gone.

But, there are many valid, non-authoritarian reasons for wanting data as granular as possible with a new virus.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#174

Post by javagram »

radford-neal wrote: post #171
javagram wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just looked at the press release and there doesn’t appear to be any misrepresentation involved. The press release clearly talks about the benefits of vaccination even after a previous COVID-19 infection, just as the study did. CDC credibility seems intact here, but online anti vaxxer credibility continues to decline…

The title of the press release is "New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection". That is false. The first paragraph of the release says "These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone". That is false.

Seems like you stopped reading . The full sentence you quote is “These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections.”

Reinfections is the key word here indicating the study is about reinfections. You’re assuming it’s about initial infections. If they didn’t repeatedly say the word “reinfections” in the press release, you might have a point, but the reality is the CDC summary is accurate, as is the headline message that people will get stronger protection if they get vaccinated.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#175

Post by radford-neal »

radford-neal wrote: post #171
javagram wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just looked at the press release and there doesn’t appear to be any misrepresentation involved. The press release clearly talks about the benefits of vaccination even after a previous COVID-19 infection, just as the study did. CDC credibility seems intact here, but online anti vaxxer credibility continues to decline…

The title of the press release is "New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection". That is false. The first paragraph of the release says "These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone". That is false.

If someone says "X and Y", and X is false, then what they say is false.

You're arguing that someone who already knows what the study says can re-interpret the statements in the press release as being true, by adding a few additional qualifiers like "among the already infected" here and there, on the assumption that they were just omitted for brevity. But the intended reader, who doesn't already know what the study really says, will read the statements as written, and will receive a false communication.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#176

Post by javagram »

radford-neal wrote: post #175
radford-neal wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title of the press release is "New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection". That is false. The first paragraph of the release says "These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone". That is false.

If someone says "X and Y", and X is false, then what they say is false. You're arguing that someone who already knows what the study says can re-interpret the statements in the press release as being true, by adding a few additional qualifiers like "among the already infected" here and there, on the assumption that they were just omitted for brevity. But the intended reader, who doesn't already know what the study re…

No, I’m arguing your complaint is based on your own misreading. Some form of “reinfected” or “reinfections” appears 4 times in the press release.

There’s no need to “add qualifiers” - simply to not remove them.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#177

Post by radford-neal »

javagram wrote: post #176
radford-neal wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone says "X and Y", and X is false, then what they say is false. You're arguing that someone who already knows what the study says can re-interpret the statements in the press release as being true, by adding a few additional qualifiers like "among the already infected" here and there, on the assumption that they were just omitted for brevity. But the intended reader, who doesn't already know what the study re…

No, I’m arguing your complaint is based on your own misreading. Some form of “reinfected” or “reinfections” appears 4 times in the press release. There’s no need to “add qualifiers” - simply to not remove them.

Read the title. What does it say? What it says is false. Note that many people won't read beyond the title.

Read the second sentence of the first paragraph. It says two things, the first of which is false.

You're arguing that the press release is fine, because although it contains false statements, it also contains some true statements.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#178

Post by jscheel »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #139
jscheel wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you even read the article you posted below (since flagged, not by me)? It outlines the study's results, which very clearly say that the results only show that omicron is effective at evading vaccines, and do not indicate any increased susceptibility based on vaccine use. It describes its results as "a measure of how well Omicron evades the vaccines compared to Delta." It also states, "from our recent characterist…

Did you read it? It shows that triple boosted had a higher rate of contracting Omicron than unvaxxed. Funny how if it said the opposite, even hypothetically, that they'd be screaming it far and wide as facts and using it for fact checking, but if it indicates the opposite, then we can't draw any conclusions.

Yes I did, and you are still misinterpreting its results. Omicron is more prevalent because it’s the one with the most vaccine breakthrough potential. In a vaccinated individual, omicron is the variant with the highest probability to be present. In the unvaccinated population, you all variants are competing for same infection, and you have a higher overall risk of infection regardless of variant.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#179

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

peteradio wrote: post #164
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty big risk reduction in either case.

*relative risk reduction We don't always care about relative risk reduction when the absolute risk is considered negligible. That is how we narrow focus and decide on what to spend our limited resources.

Sure, but given that vaccines are readily available and reduce risk, seems like a relative no-brainer to deploy them.

And also, the absolute risk is very dependent on age.

Re: Covid-19 breakthrough data

#180

Post by bsder »

josephcsible wrote: post #150
bsder wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got vaccinated because I don't want to play Russian roulette again. I got Covid Original Flavour(tm) before vaccines. I got "lucky"--high fever for a little over 2 weeks, swelling in places that I never knew could swell, and my stamina shot to shit. It's taken me a year to put myself back together. I went and got both vaccines and a booster, thanks. I have a relative by marriage who is an anti-vaxxer and is about t…

> I have a relative by marriage who is an anti-vaxxer and is about the same age and about the same healthiness as I was. He got Covid. He played Russian Roulette and lost. He's currently on ECMO and would be DEAD if he hadn't lucked into getting the last ECMO bed for 400 miles. And, when all is said and done, it's going to take probably years of therapy for him to be even a shadow of his former self. How many other p…

> How many other people do you know who that didn't happen to? Remember, everyone who got it in 2020 was unvaccinated. And if we're to accept this anecdote, then we also need to accept all of the anecdotes about the vaccine harming people.

Well, I know of 27 people in my circle who got Covid. 2 are dead. 1 is currently on ventilation. 2 went on ventilation and recovered and have been in therapy every since. 3 have severe long Covid that is impacting their lives detrimentally. 7 have mild long Covid (myself included) that we probably should just classify as "viruses do more damage and take longer to get rid of than we thought". So, that leaves 12 who are basically fully recovered--and most of those were post-vaccination.

Of course, this leaves out people who got Covid but either didn't get tested or were so mild that they didn't notice.

Let us contrast this to the vaccine: Out of all the people I know of who got the vaccine (probably 50+) as well as people who participated in the testing phase (7 of them) I know this many who had any symptoms from the vaccine after 2 weeks:

Exactly zero.

And, since vaccination, I know of this many vaccinated people who have had to even go to the hospital let alone be ventilated or die:

Exactly zero.

I'm sure someone, somewhere has had a bad reaction to the vaccine. Anaphylaxis is a thing.

However, if I apply a statistical analysis even to my weak anecdotal data, I'm going to come up with a strong signal.

Post reply on HN