Looks like the Lowes policy thing was bullshit, which makes sense because it was a super dumb policy
Where did you get that?
Chris is a good guy. I gambled with him a ton on sports in hsnl on our old home. We need to get him over here.
3 Likes
I think this is a great idea if you think thereās any likelihood you could pull it off.
2 Likes
Raise
I donāt know how many people subscribe to Your Local Epidemiologist, but itās a good (and brief) newsletter. Todayās was especially good, I thought. Key points:
- We seem to be getting closer to a good estimate of the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against Delta. Originally, we had a range of like 88% from the UK down to 39% from Israel. But a recent study from the UK shows that something in between is most likely:
vaccinated people had a 59% reduced risk of getting symptomatic COVID19 compared to unvaccinated.
- Viral load can be the same among the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated**, BUT this is only the case in the first 6 days. Thereās a faster decline among the vaccinated, so that
Vaccinated seem to not be infectious after 9 days (Ct=30) compared to unvaccinated at 16 days.
**The thing that is frustrating about this point is that people are interpreting it as evidence that the vaccine doesnāt work against Delta. p(high viral load|vaccinated and infected) is NOT the same as p(high viral load|vaccinated), which is a point that not enough people are making imo.
Anyway, the newsletter is a good follow.
1 Like
Ah, that is an important distinction. Itās still the sort of protection weād all be very thankful for if that were the first or only shot available.
I believe none of these account for a background of higher natural immunity due to prior infection. Thatās going to lower the infection rate in the unvaccinated group which will make the vaccines appear less effective.
(So they control vs todayās unvaxxed population which is different than the last years control which was used in the original studies).
Yeah, hard to say how big a factor that is, though.
1 Like
I canāt find it but iirc something an example of about 10-20% in raw numbers. So if last year was 90%, then the same vaccine effectiveness would drop to 80 or a little less.
I have no idea what the fraction of unvaxxed that tests antibody positive.
What does it mean to say āthe single-shot J&J vaccine offered 91% to 96.2% protection against deathā?
I thought even unvaccinated people have only around a 2% chance of dying if they get Covid. That would seem like the baseline (no vax) would be a 98% āprotection against deathā so Iām confused but Iām sure Iām misunderstanding something.
Lol, that evidence is umm, not great for his lawsuit.
The denominator is the number of people in the study who died, not the total number of people in the study.
1 Like
This is only true if the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are equal, but assuming equal populations does make the math easier to understand.
If N people are vaccinated and another N peopler are unvaccinated, then if M people who were unvaccinated died, then ~0.06 * M people who were vaccinated died.
2 Likes
Adding on to jman and wookie:
I canāt quite match the numbers, but Iām pretty sure itās relative to the expectation of an unvaccinated person. For example, hereās one of the slides:
Take the last column on the right - youāve got a death rate of 0.37% among unvaccinated people (38/10,141), but only 0.049% among vaccinated. So if you assume the vaccinated people would have experienced the same frequency without the vaccine, then the vaccine was 1 - (0.049%/0.37%) = 87% effective. (Like I said, I canāt exactly match their 91%-96% numbers, but Iām confident that this is the spirit of their calculation.)
2 Likes