|
> In this study, there were more infections in the vaccinated group. That defies logic, though, and intuitively the infection rate of the vaccinated group cannot be higher than that of the unvaccinated. That's why I mentioned confounding factors. > From this study and others, I believe the vaccines used in the US do not provide substantial protection against infection by delta. This is a common error, but an error nonetheless. Take an extreme example of a population that is 100%. Any clusters of cases that pop up will thus be 100% in vaccinated folks. Of course, would would never see that and think "well, I should be unvaccinated, because 0% of infections happen for unvaccinated people." Focus on this conflation that you are making: > there were more infections in the vaccinated group
and
> and intuitively the infection rate of the vaccinated group cannot be higher than that of the unvaccinated. You are conflating total number of infections with infection rate, which is what is leading you astray. Imagine you have 100 people. 90 are vaccinated. 10 aren't. Imagine that all 100 of those people are exposed to the Delta variant, and 10% of vaccinated folks end up testing positive, while 50% of of unvaccinated folks end up positive. In pure numbers, you end up with 9 vaccinated folks who are positive, and 5 unvaccinated folks who are positive. Voila, more infections in the vaccinated group! But, clearly, that's misleading, because comparing raw infection numbers is meaningless without also looking at percentages vaccinated. |