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

Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die

#31

Post by iammisc »

jasonlaramburu wrote: post #15
iammisc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means nothing as these studies rarely take into account confounding variables. For example the vaxxed are more likely to distance and stay at home

Or they’re more likely to take risks out of perceived protection. Well designed studies do take these factors into account and ensure a sufficiently large and diverse sample size.

How can you possibly find the group that represents the intersection of both 'covid is no big deal and I'll continue to live my life as normal' and 'you should take the covid vaccine'? This is like trying to find a pro life obstetrician who performs abortion. Other than the mentally ill, no one holds those two beliefs honestly at the same time. If it does exist, it probably doesn't in numbers large enough to matter.

We are approaching the limits of empiricism.

Re: Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die

#32

Post by iammisc »

phren0logy wrote: post #24
iammisc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means nothing as these studies rarely take into account confounding variables. For example the vaxxed are more likely to distance and stay at home

It’s an imperfect study, like all population-level research. That said, it’s not fatally flawed. So, unless you are aware of something better, it’s reasonable to say that this is is currently the best available data. An imperfect but reasonable study is not an excuse to throw everything out and jump to your own conclusions.

Except it is. Statistical studies can show all kinds of weird correlations that disappear when larger context is taken into account.

There is no reason to believe there is a large group of people who behaved as if covid were not dangerous and who also felt an urgent need to take the vaccine. The existence of such a group of people is vital to whether or not data can be used to make these claims about the covid vaccine.

Until the existence of that group is shown I don't understand how behavior is controlled for. Everyone claims to be following the rules. case in point, my mother in law is absolutely freaked out about covid. Has the vaccine. Masks. Distances etc. Except she breaks the rules whenever convenient. But in her mind these are necessary. She'll still complain about others who break the rules similarly. Lots of people are this way. You can't trust self reports and you can't follow that many people

Also, and more egregiously, there is a history of fake covid studies destined to make those on the 'side' of the anti vaxxers look bad. So my bayesian a priori estimate of the usefulness of studies on the other 'side' is shifted more to the distrust side.

Re: Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die

#33

Post by iammisc »

relativ575 wrote: post #25
iammisc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means nothing as these studies rarely take into account confounding variables. For example the vaxxed are more likely to distance and stay at home

That sounds reasonable on the face of it. Do you have data to back it up?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350666/americans-getting-cautio...

Look at the table "Americans' Use of Face Masks, by Vaccination Status". 90% of the vaccinated still wear masks. 49% of the unvaxxed do.

The study hinges on a magical group of vax recipients that act as if covid doesn't exist now and behaved the same before the vax . There is little reason to believe this group exists in large numbers.

Re: Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die

#34

Post by robocat »

iammisc wrote: post #33
relativ575 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds reasonable on the face of it. Do you have data to back it up?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350666/americans-getting-cautio... Look at the table "Americans' Use of Face Masks, by Vaccination Status". 90% of the vaccinated still wear masks. 49% of the unvaxxed do. The study hinges on a magical group of vax recipients that act as if covid doesn't exist now and behaved the same before the vax . There is little reason to believe this group exists in large numbers.

That was the only figure in the whole article which split out vax recipients, versus no-vax. The implication is that all the other figures didn’t have such a spectacular difference.

So why is mask wearing so correlated with taking a vaccine? I think you are suggesting one causation, yet the actual reason is probably the “hidden” correlate of partisanship. Lots of people use mask wearing to show party affiliation, and I would guess that party affiliation in the US is highly correlated with taking the vaccine or not.

Also you didn’t answer at all your original point “It means nothing as these studies rarely take into account confounding variables. For example the vaxxed are more likely to distance and stay at home”. Instead your link has nothing to do with correlation of distancing or staying at home. Changing the topic is a classic technique.

Re: Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die

#35

Post by [deleted] »

loonster wrote: post #29
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even let's say, you are survivable enough (peak health, early 20s), you can still catch it and transmit it to grandma. Of course, if you also want to isolate yourself from society, then do whatever you want.

The person that takes the vaccine bears all of the risk of taking the vaccine. They get to decide if it's in their personal interest to do so. If grandma is uncomfortable with the risks of being around others, she may isolate herself and bear the costs of isolation. She shouldn't be so entitled to demand that others take on a risk for her benefit.

[deleted]

Re: Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die

#36

Post by seanmcdirmid »

loonster wrote: post #29
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even let's say, you are survivable enough (peak health, early 20s), you can still catch it and transmit it to grandma. Of course, if you also want to isolate yourself from society, then do whatever you want.

The person that takes the vaccine bears all of the risk of taking the vaccine. They get to decide if it's in their personal interest to do so. If grandma is uncomfortable with the risks of being around others, she may isolate herself and bear the costs of isolation. She shouldn't be so entitled to demand that others take on a risk for her benefit.

That’s just not how vaccines work. You don’t take a vaccine for your own selfish needs, you take it for society’s needs. They are intrinsically opposed to libertarian ideals where the individual decisions must only apply to those individuals. Much of modern medicine and modern society are in direct composition to those ideals. Society has benefits, but it also has responsibilities.

Re: Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die

#37

Post by iammisc »

robocat wrote: post #34
iammisc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350666/americans-getting-cautio... Look at the table "Americans' Use of Face Masks, by Vaccination Status". 90% of the vaccinated still wear masks. 49% of the unvaxxed do. The study hinges on a magical group of vax recipients that act as if covid doesn't exist now and behaved the same before the vax . There is little reason to believe this group exists in large numbers.

That was the only figure in the whole article which split out vax recipients, versus no-vax. The implication is that all the other figures didn’t have such a spectacular difference. So why is mask wearing so correlated with taking a vaccine? I think you are suggesting one causation, yet the actual reason is probably the “hidden” correlate of partisanship. Lots of people use mask wearing to show party affiliation, and…

You don't think masking works? You don't think masking is correlated with distancing? You accuse me of not taking into account obvious correlations, while doing the exact same thing. Not changing the topic. I have little evidence. One of the pitfalls of empiricism is that when the only ones with the ability to publish data are also liable to narrative pushing (see the numerous retracted studies on COVID treatments due to fake data), it's difficult for laypeople to disprove it.

I'm just pointing out that the vaxxed are more likely to follow other safeguards, like wearing masks, which I imagine is also correlated with distancing. This seems obvious to me, and informs my a priori assumptions. If you have data that shows that those who wear masks are also more likely to ignore social distancing (a counterintuitive result indeed), I'd be happy to change my assessment.

Re: Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die

#38

Post by robocat »

iammisc wrote: post #37
robocat wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was the only figure in the whole article which split out vax recipients, versus no-vax. The implication is that all the other figures didn’t have such a spectacular difference. So why is mask wearing so correlated with taking a vaccine? I think you are suggesting one causation, yet the actual reason is probably the “hidden” correlate of partisanship. Lots of people use mask wearing to show party affiliation, and…

You don't think masking works? You don't think masking is correlated with distancing? You accuse me of not taking into account obvious correlations, while doing the exact same thing. Not changing the topic. I have little evidence. One of the pitfalls of empiricism is that when the only ones with the ability to publish data are also liable to narrative pushing (see the numerous retracted studies on COVID treatments du…

You state that the 5X figure ”means nothing” but don’t follow up with anything relating the the CDC papers to back your opinion.

We can argue all you like about correlations, but when you say “means nothing” you need a bit more data than handwaving at a single measurement.

Everyone understands correlations exist, but you can’t just dismiss their headline “5X” figure without something more substantive.

And please don’t jump to your inference that I was trying to say masks don’t work. HN guidelines: “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”. Edit: And to be clear, one minor point I was making was to agree with you that confounding variables exist.

I don’t care about correlations. I do care that you seemed to make a glib dismissal of the original article, and then you are failing to defend your dismissal and simply introducing a range of irrelevancies. Edit: perhaps justify why your opinion means anything compared with the data presented in original paper: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm

Re: Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die

#39

Post by dragonwriter »

dham wrote: post #4

Why is everything so black and white in studies, hospital reporting and government policies? There are 5 groups of people. There's really more if you want to get detailed but here are the basics. Vaccinated Vaccinated then infection Unvaccinated - Previous infection Previous infection then vaccinated Unvaccinated - No previous infection Does anyone care about nuance anymore? Just saying vaccinated and unvaccinated is…

> Why is everything so black and white in studies

Because getting to black and white and cutting through fuzziness is the whole point of expending resources on a study.

> Does anyone care about nuance anymore? Just saying vaccinated and unvaccinated is a disservice to the population

Not if your goal is to isolate the effect of vaccine rather than to do some kind of fuzzy emotional handholding to people's instinctive, non-fact-driven subjective feelings about what groupings are important.

Moreover, because potentially the vast majority (estimates vary widely) of prior infections will have been undetected, outside of some very special study designs which would necessarily be much smaller and less population-representative [0], throwing in prior infection as an independent variable is going to be garbage data (and, even if it wasn't, any information from it would generally be nonactionable for the same reason.)

[0] e.g., using a subpopulation that is carefully monitored for infection, like healthcare workers.

Re: Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die

#40

Post by dragonwriter »

criticaltinker wrote: post #6
dham wrote: post #4

Why is everything so black and white in studies, hospital reporting and government policies? There are 5 groups of people. There's really more if you want to get detailed but here are the basics. Vaccinated Vaccinated then infection Unvaccinated - Previous infection Previous infection then vaccinated Unvaccinated - No previous infection Does anyone care about nuance anymore? Just saying vaccinated and unvaccinated is…

Can't be emphasized enough. Even if simplified down to three groups: 1) immunologically naive (never been exposed to SARS-CoV-2) 2) vaccinated 3) recovered from previous infection Most discussions on HN completely miss the distinction between these groups. The truth is, so far scientific consensus indicates that groups 2 & 3 are at least equally well protected and pose equivalent risk to others. Much of the bickering…

> The truth is, so far scientific consensus indicates that groups 2 & 3 are at least equally well protected and pose equivalent risk to others.

If they are, then the immunologically naive are even worse off than vaccinated/unvaccinated data suggests, making vaccination even more critical for anyone without a certainly-known prior infection.

Post reply on HN