[trhway]

Your link is multipage propaganda spin full of media distrust FUD without data, and deja vu - White House tweets blaming the media for wrong coverage of hard CDC data.

Whereis if you compare the CNBC link i posted with the official CDC report linked below you'll find no screwed up nor mis-interpretation on the part of CNBC (though CNBC didn't mention the 69% vaccination coverage and obvious correlation with the observed 74% share of infections). And the CDC report is crystal clear:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

"During July 2021, 469 cases of COVID-19 associated with multiple summer events and large public gatherings in a town in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, were identified among Massachusetts residents; vaccination coverage among eligible Massachusetts residents was 69%. Approximately three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons"

[skystarman]

It's weird that you are certain this study is a gold-standard for medicine when nothing anywhere close to this has been shown in any other country.

It's an incredibly small sample size, directly after an unusual event after very large indoor public gathering of many people.

This is not how science works.

[makomk]

There's actually a really robust-looking study just out in the UK sampling the population to find how much less likely vaccinated people are to be positive for Covid than non-vaccinated people: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/latest-react-1-study-...

Apparently the answer is that they're a third as likely to have it as the unvaccinated. Which certainly isn't nothing, and it's definitely better than the flu vaccine managed, but it does suggest that there's probably no way we're going to stop the spread of the Delta variant through any level of vaccination no matter what the US media claims. It also means that any hope of avoiding selective pressure for vaccine escape by just vaccinating people quickly enough is likely to prove futile. We also don't really have any special exemptions or privileges for vaccinated people yet outside of laxer requirements for international travel, so that wouldn't explain why the gap is so small.

(Incidentally, the "quick peak and decline in countries with high levels of vaccination" like the UK almost certainly isn't simply a result of vaccines working, despite the CJR article's attempt to spin it that way. All our experts over here seem to be in agreement that not only are the vaccines not effective enough to explain that, it just doesn't make sense to have such a sudden peak and decline as a result of our vaccination program - which has actually been slowing down as it runs out of willing recipients - or from natural immunity in combination with it. They reckon it must be caused in part by people's behaviour, and if we return to normal or autumn hits cases will go up again.)

[trhway]

>they're a third as likely to have it as the unvaccinated

In the week ending 07/31 MA was getting about 600/day, 200 of them are vaccinated. The number of vaccinated are 4.2M out of 7.1M. Thus according to that data the probability for a vaccinated is just under 40% of unvaccinated.

Giving that Delta is several times more virulent the current situation can be thought that way - the vaccinated facing Delta today is like unvaccinated facing original year ago (year ago totally unvaccinated MA had 400-500/day, and if MA was totally vaccinated today, 7.1M instead of 4.2M, it would as result be 350cases/day instead of the 200). I.e. these numbers also suggest that there is no good way to stop the spread until Delta capable vaccine comes.

That also highlights the propaganda spin of "just 125K breakthroughs out of 160M vaccinated since January", the widely tweeted 0.08% (especially giving that CDC hasn't been counting non-hospitalizations breakthroughs since May, and that number seems definitely incorrect as MA having 2.5% of vaccinated has 7K total breakthroughs - almost 6% of 125K) - the Delta is pretty recent and the total number isn't the point, the point is the current infection rate of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.

[SvnewbKfvFxRPZG]

Just chiming in to add some data I ran across earlier today. The spreadsheet showcases data from Israel which was updated yesterday, 8/3/21. I found it very valuable as it broke down demographics by age and vaccination status.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Mg6NEp4iKcSR1O8l47bL...

The source for the data is linked in spreadsheet. You can copy/paste the link in google translate.

Imgur links of relevant translated data: https://imgur.com/a/uV2wP5B

This clearly shows a significant portion of the new cases are among the vaccinated.

Anecdotally, those I know who have "breakthrough" cases are having fairly moderate flu-like symptoms. I am quite confident those who are symptomatic are capable of spreading illness even if the vaccinated as a population are less likely to transmit disease.

[trhway]

Your response is extremely typical mix of mis-information (see below), generally stated principles bordering in their generality on banality and absence of any data.

>nothing anywhere close to this has been shown in any other country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/29/cdc-mask-gu...

"This echoes data seen from studies in other countries, including highly vaccinated Singapore, where 75 percent of new infections reportedly occur in people who are partially and fully vaccinated."

[skystarman]

>Your response is extremely typical - just generally stated principles bordering in their generality on banality and without any ounce of data.

Y'see in SCIENCE we have this generally stated principle that we don't draw empirical conclusions from a dataset of a few hundred observations.

How banal!

"This echoes data seen from studies in other countries, including highly vaccinated Singapore, where 75 percent of new infections reportedly occur in people who are partially and fully vaccinated."

This does absolutely nothing to back up your claim that vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the Delta variant.

But please ask for help next time you move those goalposts, I wouldn't want you hurting yourself.

[trhway]

>Y'see in SCIENCE we have this generally stated principle that we don't draw empirical conclusions from a dataset of a few hundred observations.

the statistics would disagree with you on how representative a random draw of several hundred would be in this situation. Anyway, just an example related to the situation - Moderna stage 2 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7871769/):

"Between 29 May and 8 July 2020, 600 participants were randomized, 300 per age cohort. [...]

Conclusions

Vaccination with mRNA-1273 resulted in significant immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 in participants 18 years and older, with an acceptable safety profile, confirming the safety and immunogenicity of 50 and 100 µg mRNA-1273 given as a 2 dose-regimen. "

>This does absolutely nothing to back up your claim that vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the Delta variant.

beside obvious statistical arithmetic clearly showing it (whihc i guess is pointless to discuss giving your statistics statements above), you probably missed the part about nasal viral content in vaccinated people being similar to that of unvaccinated and hint - this infection is airborne. This is why CDC introduced mask mandate for everybody.

And you can read this too https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

"The higher the amount of coronavirus in the nose and throat, the more likely the patient will infect others. In one Wisconsin county, after Delta became predominant, researchers analyzed viral loads on nose-and-throat swab samples obtained when patients were first diagnosed. They found similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, with levels often high enough to allow shedding of infectious virus. "

[skystarman]

"the statistics would disagree with you on how representative a random draw of several hundred would be in this situation"

The observations in your original citation were NOT NOT NOT a random sample.

Are you really this deeply ignorant of basic statistical methods or are you just being dishonest?