This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
You forgot to address the possible next-to-no benefit in reduction in absolute terms. You know, the first part of my question = "'far bigger roll of the dice' of a bad outcome is reduced with vaccination [hypothetically] from ~0.003 % to 0.001 %..."
You forgot to address the possible next-to-no benefit in reduction in absolute terms. You know, the first part of my question = "'far bigger roll of the dice' of a bad outcome is reduced with vaccination [hypothetically] from ~0.003 % to 0.001 %..."
Again, it's entirely possibly to construct hypotheticals where a medical intervention is not necessary.
There is no evidence this is the case for COVID vaccines.
As if antivaxxers didn’t make normal, sane people feel sick and disgusted before, it is also still the case that being you are more likely to get sick from being around an antivaxxer than a patriotic vaxxer. Antivaxxers and the right winger clowns who enable them go home devastated yet again.
As if antivaxxers didn’t make normal, sane people feel sick and disgusted before, it is also still the case that you are more likely to get actually sick from being around an antivaxxer than a patriotic vaxxer. Antivaxxers and the right winger clowns who enable them go home devastated yet again.
Why are these data different from previous reports that supported >4 months durability for booster vs Omicron? The @KPSCalResearch new report did not partition immunocompromised patients like this CDC report on Omicron (and others)https://t.co/SZgihHkFLtpic.twitter.com/AsblUnV748
To clarify, I don't even deal that much with hypotheticals, but more with real world data. By going through these "vaccine efficacy"-papers, it is always weird how little there is focus on the risk in absolute terms in general population or in different age or risk groups etc.
Either way, as immunocompromised and other hosts with significant comorbidity (metabolic syndrome & obesity) are a high percentage of the population, it’s impossible and inaccurate to completely partition them out. You know this.
Anyhow, time to change my handle and register it as Waning Efficacy.
To clarify, I don't even deal that much with hypotheticals, but more with real world data. By going through these "vaccine efficacy"-papers, it is always weird how little there is focus on the risk in absolute terms in general population or in different age or risk groups etc.
Lots of this "risk "info has been posted and analyzed on this and Harambe's famed "Pandemic thread." I will just point you toward one of the largest studies on cardiac outcomes following vax vs. COVID to do your research :)
Myocarditis is the most common severe adverse outcome from vaccination. This paper looked at events in a massive population from 1 December 2020 to 24 August 2021.
Top line conclusions: We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. We also observed increased risks of pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Similar associations were not observed with any of the COVID-19 vaccines, apart from an increased risk of arrhythmia following a second dose of mRNA-1273. Subgroup analyses by age showed the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0
All of these numbers are very very low. There are not hundreds of thousands of people at major cardiac risk from vaccination.
The Economy Minister needs to resign. He can't tell a good deal from a bad deal because he chose the bad one.
"Brazil Economy Minister Paulo Guedes tested positive for Covid-19 just days after returning from a trip to the U.S. where he attended International Monetary Fund meetings. Guedes, 72, received three shots of coronavirus vaccines and has mild symptoms, his press office said in a note Monday."
The figures are very, very low. Just out ir curiosity, what risk of getting hospitalised, ICU or death with Covid-19 would you consider "very low"?
Many people would consider risk of hospitalisation of ~10-15 %, ICU 3-5 % and 1-2 % death low enough in their decision making not to get the vaccine even if all nevertheless higher than the (current) consensus view on the risk of just vax-induced heart problems.
To clarify, I don't even deal that much with hypotheticals, but more with real world data. By going through these "vaccine efficacy"-papers, it is always weird how little there is focus on the risk in absolute terms in general population or in different age or risk groups etc.
There's plenty of focus on absolute risk. Mainly that absolute risk of vaccine injury is far less than that from COVID.
Your argument of "number small" is just not that sophisticated.
Many people would consider risk of hospitalisation of ~10-15 %, ICU 3-5 % and 1-2 % death low enough in their decision making not to get the vaccine even if all nevertheless higher than the (current) consensus view on the risk of just vax-induced heart problems.
So the idea is to take 15% chance of hospitalization to avoid a risk of myocarditis that is many, many orders of magnitude lower (before correcting that most myocarditis cases were mild)?
If your argument is that "many people" are mathematically illiterate, then sure.
Many people would consider risk of hospitalisation of ~10-15 %, ICU 3-5 % and 1-2 % death low enough in their decision making not to get the vaccine even if all nevertheless higher than the (current) consensus view on the risk of just vax-induced heart problems.
So the idea is to take 15% chance of hospitalization to avoid a risk of myocarditis that is many, many orders of magnitude lower (before correcting that most myocarditis cases were mild)?
If your argument is that "many people" are mathematically illiterate, then sure.
I am not specifically arguing anything, I am not sure I have even given any strong position on any of this, but just asked a question. Please feel free to give your view on the issue of what is a "low number" on hospitalisation, ICU or death with Covid-19.
Either way, as immunocompromised and other hosts with significant comorbidity (metabolic syndrome & obesity) are a high percentage of the population, it’s impossible and inaccurate to completely partition them out. You know this.
Anyhow, time to change my handle and register it as Waning Efficacy.
No evidence that waning is more pronounced in those with obesity? Random non-sequitur but I'll allow it.
Anyway, the data are correct in pointing out that vaccines do not work well in patients that we did not expect them to work well in.
The constant confounder that people who have gotten a booster, especially those under 60, are much more likely to be immunocompromised should absolutely be pointed out.
Of course, this is not an excuse. We absolutely should be working to better protect immunocompromised people. Thankfully antivirals like paxlovid are now abundant and offer substantial additional protection.
