Is the nit here that 120 days isn’t exactly equal to 4 months??
Also, an outlier compared to what? Literal anecdotes? Here’s a paper recently published in Science that looked at VA records and found that, from July on, vaccine efficacy against death was in the 70s for people over 65 and in the low 80s for people under 65.
When the mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccines were compared, estimated vaccine effectiveness was similar within 120 days of vaccination. In contrast, beyond 120 days, the results corresponded to an estimated effectiveness of 85% for the mRNA-1273 and 64% for the BNT162b2 vaccine to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations.
There are certainly also papers that don’t observe statistically significant evidence of waning of efficacy against hospitalization, but to breezily dismiss the effect as an outlier is really wild. To repeat my point from earlier, it’s no mystery why people in vulnerable groups aren’t rushing to get their booster shots. It’s exactly because the results showing that there may be real danger for people in vulnerable groups who don’t get their boosters are systematically downplayed. I will absolutely concede that the pessimistic studies may be flawed in some respect and the optimistic ones are correct, but aren’t you normally out here sermonizing about the precautionary principle and evidence-based medicine? How does that square with allowing vulnerable people to believe that they have nearly foolproof protection against severe infection when the evidence is unclear?
No, the factual statement is that what you said was incorrect. It wasn’t a subgroup analysis at four months. It was a range up to 120 days and greater than 120 days. The number you reported is “greater than 4 months”. That is different than ‘at four months’.
Also, an outlier compared to what? Literal anecdotes? Here’s a paper recently published in Science that looked at VA records and found that, from July on, vaccine efficacy against death was in the 70s for people over 65 and in the low 80s for people under 65.
This is a completely different topic.
The JAMA paper linked isn’t a study of vaccine effectiveness. It’s a study of people hospitalized patients only.
I have access to internal data and the 15-50 or so covid patients I admit in any given month. If protection is down to 66%-75% against hospitalization it’s not happening in NorCal.
edit: my covid admissions have gone down quite a bit lately. Partly because overall numbers are down, but they seem to be creeping up. Mostly because the stable-ish patients that are getting admitted are going to a midlevel instead of our main ER now.
Your paper doesn’t surprise me. It also doesn’t contradict anything I said. Even if it did, it would be new information to incorporate and presenting this way would be inappropriate
Individuals who have had two vaccine doses can be just as infectious as those who have not been jabbed.
Even if they have no or few symptoms, the chance of them transmitting the virus to other unvaccinated housemates is about two in five, or 38%.
This drops to one in four, or 25%, if housemates are also fully vaccinated.
According to the study, which ran from September 2020 to September 2021 and included 440 households in London and Bolton doing PCR Covid tests:
People who are double jabbed have a lower, but still appreciable, risk of becoming infected with the Delta variant compared with unvaccinated people
They also appear to be just as infectious
Vaccinated people clear the infection more quickly, but their peak viral load - when people are most infectious - is similar to that seen in unvaccinated people
ATACCC is an observational longitudinal cohort study of community contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases. Contacts of symptomatic PCR-confirmed index cases notified to the UK contact-tracing system (National Health Service Test and Trace) were asked if they would be willing to be contacted by Public Health England to discuss participation in the study.
I’m quoting the paper Churchill. Their index cases were all symptomatic PCR confirmed cases. I provided you the quote from the primary source. I don’t care about the BBC article.
In fact, the paper explicitly talks about this fact being a limitation of their paper.
They also find viral load drops faster in vaccinated patients.
Pretty sure everyone here is pro booster. JT and you aren’t understanding some posts and papers and are being quite insulting towards me because of it. It’s annoying. Stop.
CN clearly defined what he meant by efficient transmission in a vaccinated population, and that is a reproductive number > 1, aka sustained exponential growth of infections in a population. Your paper does not present evidence that it is not the case, only that it is possible for vaccinated to spread to other people, and we’ve agreed. That it says “efficiently transmit” is not some rebuttal, because they’re not using it in CN’s particular sense.
The only one fighting facts here is you. The discussion you took the time to quote me from was about Covid spread through a population of people, which is obviously different than the study you post here. We’re veering from “mistake” to “dishonest” with this post
Is there any ultimate point of this argument other than establishing who was right and who was wrong? Are we shaming vaccinated people for going out to dinner?
