Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch Delta, 11X more likely to die
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/unvaccinated-are-5x-more-likely-to-catch-delta-11x-more-likely-to-die/
47 comments
Possibly a side effect of biased data collection.
"... I had gone to a house party in Montgomery County. There were 15 adults there, all of us fully vaccinated."
"... Then, I started to hear that a few other people who had been at the party were getting sick. Then a few more. At this point, 11 of the 15 have tested positive for COVID."
"... The CDC announced in May that it was only going to collect data on breakthrough infections that led to hospitalization or death, which are fortunately rare."
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0804-bre...
"... I had gone to a house party in Montgomery County. There were 15 adults there, all of us fully vaccinated."
"... Then, I started to hear that a few other people who had been at the party were getting sick. Then a few more. At this point, 11 of the 15 have tested positive for COVID."
"... The CDC announced in May that it was only going to collect data on breakthrough infections that led to hospitalization or death, which are fortunately rare."
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0804-bre...
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.
We are approaching the limits of empiricism.
Double blind technique should eliminate a lot of these confounders, eg if you don’t know whether or not you’ve received the vaccine, your behavior presumably wouldn’t change much. However that is admittedly harder with the MRNA vaccines since most people have some mild side effects after the second dose.
Those distrustful of vaccination are unlikely to sign up for trials
Or are the trials being conducted clandestinely?
Or are the trials being conducted clandestinely?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
There is an implied clause.
> Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch delta (than vaccinated), 11X more likely to die (than vaccinated)
Fixed the headline.
> Unvaccinated are 5X more likely to catch delta (than vaccinated), 11X more likely to die (than vaccinated)
Fixed the headline.
I’ll die from covid or from the weather sleeping outside before I recognize a dictator.
That was unacceptable.
That was unacceptable.
I got vaccinated and I still won’t comply. If I have to get fired for refusing to prove to my employer that I’m vaccinated, so be it. Even more so because I’m a remote employee; what business is it of theirs?
If you won’t provide proof you can substitute a weekly negative test.
[deleted]
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 a disservice to the population
----
Other things to care about
Vaccinated with 2 mrna shots with > 3 weeks between shots
Vaccinated with 2 mrna shots with 3 weeks between shots
Vaccinated with viral vector
Previous infection then vaccinated > 6 weeks after symptoms were gone
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 a disservice to the population
----
Other things to care about
Vaccinated with 2 mrna shots with > 3 weeks between shots
Vaccinated with 2 mrna shots with 3 weeks between shots
Vaccinated with viral vector
Previous infection then vaccinated > 6 weeks after symptoms were gone
Because it’s no longer about the vaccine.
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 here conflates groups 1 & 3 - it's such a common mistake I've grown tired of trying to discuss it.
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 here conflates groups 1 & 3 - it's such a common mistake I've grown tired of trying to discuss it.
> The truth is, so far scientific consensus indicates that groups 2 & 3 are at least equally well protected and pose equivalent risk to others.
Which reduces the set to two: immunologically naïve, and primed for an immune response.
Or as we like to call it, unvaccinated and vaccinated.
Edit: vaccination via live virus is absurdly foolish.
Which reduces the set to two: immunologically naïve, and primed for an immune response.
Or as we like to call it, unvaccinated and vaccinated.
Edit: vaccination via live virus is absurdly foolish.
Aside from yourself, who is this "we" who likes to mislead in this way?
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
I mean all the groups I presented have some sort of merit to them based off research (delayed 2nd shot), at least observational studies (previous infection then vaccine) or guidelines from CDC on other viruses (previous infection). Doesn't seem emotional.
I mean all the groups I presented have some sort of merit to them based off research (delayed 2nd shot), at least observational studies (previous infection then vaccine) or guidelines from CDC on other viruses (previous infection). Doesn't seem emotional.
"The inferred median infection fatality rate in locations with a COVID-19 mortality rate lower than the global average is low (0.09%). If one could sample equally from all locations globally, the median infection fatality rate might even be substantially lower than the 0.23% observed in my analysis."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7947934/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7947934/
Hold on... People tell me I'm not at all likely to die of delta now that I've been vaccinated. If the unvaxxed are only 11x more likely, then the vaccines do not work as advertised. It's like ... The rabies vaccine provides orders of magnitude better protection as does polio and measles, etc. The covid vaccines are not effective enough and it's becoming more obvious each day.
> If the unvaxxed are only 11x more likely, then the vaccines do not work as advertised.
Something that reduces your chance of dying by 11x is something that works. Why do anti vaxxers use binary arguments so much (it must make me completely immune, or the vaccine is worthless!)?
Something that reduces your chance of dying by 11x is something that works. Why do anti vaxxers use binary arguments so much (it must make me completely immune, or the vaccine is worthless!)?
Relative risk vs absolute risk.
Once the risk is low enough, you dont care as much about relative risk reduction.
Covid is survivable enough (for my demographic) that I dont care much about how the vaccine increases my odds of survival. I care more about long term risks of the vaccine and long term risks of covid and how the vaccine may mitigate it.
Once the risk is low enough, you dont care as much about relative risk reduction.
Covid is survivable enough (for my demographic) that I dont care much about how the vaccine increases my odds of survival. I care more about long term risks of the vaccine and long term risks of covid and how the vaccine may mitigate it.
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.
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]
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.
If my risk of shit of delta is essentially zero, being vaccinated myself, then someone eleven times more likely to die is also at essentially zero risk. Zero times eleven is zero.
I'm vaccinated. If I'm around someone with a delta infection, do I have 5X the amount of time to get away? Can I receive 5X the amount of viral particles with the same infection risk? Is my immune system response 5X as effective at preventing an infection?
I'm assuming its a population level analysis and not at all attenuated to individual immune response performance (unlike the death multiple which I think you can draw individual conclusions from). But I'm wondering what function (if at all) the MRNA vaccines play in reducing COVID infection.
Basically, if I engage in risky behaviors (no mask wearing, hanging around in big crowds) am I 5X less likely to pass the virus onto my son?