[Rezwoodly]

Uh, you did get vaccinated and still have these symptoms. You could also fairly end your TLDR with 'did get vaccinated, this sucks'. It seems we are still learning about the efficacy of the vaccines, and the nature of the virus. From this pov I understand why some are hesitant to be vaccinated in this phase of the pandemic

[rvp-x]

We have mountains of data about the current vaccine. This amount of disease-tracking is unheard of. Almost any institution in the world has regular discussions about this singular disease. Governments spend huge resources to pinpoint the exact minimum measures that can control the spread enough.

My country attempted a 3rd dose, and within 2 weeks they were already reporting data on reduced risk of catching the virus in comparison to 2, 1, and 0 doses. These are studies done with sample sizes of millions of people.

[_y5hn]

Sampling 3rd dose after two weeks would be statistically insignificant and not enough time to record stats from sickness.

[OrderlyTiamat]

I dont understand, why would that be "statiatically insignificant"? for what analysis?

[_y5hn]

I replied to the last paragraph of parent poster. If you study the few people getting dose 3 two weeks after, you're not going to learn anything about effectiveness of dose 3.

[edanm]

If I understand what you're saying, that's not what was done, at least here in Israel.

After the 3rd vaccine, afaik, they compared the rates of hospitalizations of people do did vs. didn't yet get the 3rd vaccine, as compared to what happened the week before. They saw a drop in 3rd-vaccinated, and only in 3rd-vaccinated, implying that it did have an effect. And this wasn't a small population (I don't know exact numbers but I assume several 10s/100s of thousands).

[rvp-x]

This is the initial report that was published after two weeks: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

[peteradio]

Links to studies?

[rvp-x]

Here's a study with a sample comparing 596,618 vaccinated matched with the same number of unvaccinated people by my own healthcare provider:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2101765

This healthcare provider is able to follow up on people with detail for a really long time - they are notified of any vaccination, PCR test result, hospitalization and death within the country. They've likely made it possible to calculate the same data for the current day within a moment's notice, and use this information for quick decision-making.

I would expect other healthcare providers in other countries to have pooled this information if they are able to do so (and possibly publish it too).

[peteradio]

Its unfortunate that they exclude prior infection from study. Why not study them as a separate cohort? 36% of Americans have been infected. What percent of the unvaccinated public have a prior infection? It seems like a 100% prior infected control group would be appropriate. Where is that data?

[walterbell]

From Bloomberg today, https://archive.is/fy4Wf

> In lieu of answers, what has emerged is a host of case studies providing somewhat different pictures of breakthrough infections. Variables including when the surveys were conducted, whether the delta variant was present, how much of the population was vaccinated and even what the weather was like at the time make it hard to compare results and suss out patterns. It’s difficult to know which data might ultimately carry more heft.

> For the time being, there are simply more questions than answers. Are breakthrough infections ticking up because of the delta variant, waning immunity or a return to normal life? Are vaccinated people more vulnerable to severe illness than previously thought? Just how common are breakthrough infections? It’s anyone’s guess. “It is generally the case that we have to make public health decisions based on imperfect data,” Frieden said. “But there is just a lot we don’t know.”

[gunapologist99]

> “It is generally the case that we have to make public health decisions based on imperfect data,”

Why can't the public draw their own conclusions and make their own health decisions, based on (imperfect) public data? Why does the data have to be kept secret? (Perhaps the data doesn't support the "public health decisions" and dictates of the state?)

If there's a concern that we can't effectively interpret the data, why can't we listen to whatever quack that we prefer and trust on national television that tells us that we really should not wear masks and couldn't wear them effectively, and they'd make us super sick because we'd be stupid about it and are completely untrainable (oh, and they're needed for health workers) -- no, wait, we should all wear masks, even if they're just thin pieces of cotton -- no, wait, even kids should wear at least two masks, even if they're running track and passing out.

[gjsman-1000]

What is the greater evil here? The slight odds of infection when they are likely outdoors, or that they are running track, passing out, getting dehydrated, breathing high levels of CO2, and the unknown long-term health effects of that?

It doesn't take much common sense to realize that exposure to virus is bad, masking while running is potentially much worse for everyone and not just the odd infection, and that it should be a choice if there are two evils.

[phonypc]

Masking doesn't change your CO2 status. Or dehydrate you.

Outdoor masking, outside the context of something like a crowded concert, is probably silly. But we can be pretty confident it won't affect your respiratory health.

[dragonwriter]

> The slight odds of infection when they are likely outdoors, or that they are running track, passing out, getting dehydrated, breathing high levels of CO2, and the unknown long-term health effects of that?

Unless you are wearing something like an SCBA mask without an appropriate air supply—which is very much not the masking recommended against COVID—that’s not going to happen, even while exercising strenuously.

> It doesn't take much common sense to realize that exposure to virus is bad, masking while running is potentially much worse for everyone

You are correct, having that “realization” definitely requires very little common sense.

[maxerickson]

I realize that in a few cities people are pushing for universal outdoor masking, but I don't think that measure is all that widely supported by public health officials.

[anonymouse008]

Because if you saw just how “imperfect” the data was… you’d borderline call it willful negligence and demand a recall/revolution.

The person running an excel sheet at a state public health office has never had to “clean” data to find duplicates with St and Street… heck even the IRS website needed your exact address in ST or Street form (case sensitive) to inform you of a economic relief payment.

So in a way, I’m very happy our brightest minds are working on clicking ads rather than building an oppressive regime.

[gjsman-1000]

"But there is just a lot we don’t know."

Well... as a citizen, I should have the right to stay back and watch what happens, and take it when I feel safe, instead of being forced to join the experiment.

[roland35]

You definitely have that right, but at this point the choice isn't vaccine vs no vaccine, it is vaccine vs getting covid. It is much more contagious than it was last year.

[gunapologist99]

Your logic gate is faulty; it sounds like you are concluding that you will definitely get covid if you are not vaccinated, but that still depends on a number of things; people can get deliveries and work out of their home and never get it. It is also demonstrably incorrect that the vaccine is an amulet of proof against covid.

[_y5hn]

Ditto. When lockdown cease the contagion will spread much more widely. Everyone will be exposed to some of it. What matters are fewer critical conditions and less spread from vaccinated.

[igetspam]

Just as long as you stay away from the rest of us, I agree. In fact, I'd pitch in to a fund aimed at shipping you all to desert island together and letting you return when you decide to like the science.

[peteradio]

I'm naturally immune asshole. Science tells me I should avoid a treatment which is more likely to cause no benefit to anyone.

[meheleventyone]

Yes my point is that it’d be worse without being vaccinated and that my wife who is also vaccinated and spent seven days in close proximity with me whilst symptomatic has not been infected.

[mrgordon]

You missed the point. The virus is usually much worse without the vaccine.

[andrew_]

Please provide data for that claim.

[meheleventyone]

From our chief epidemiologist over here in Iceland:

“ Þórólfur wrote in his response to RÚV yesterday that the figures change quickly and that now the non-vaccinated infection rate is twice as high rather than three-times, the hospital admission rate is five-times higher, and the rate of admission to intensive care is also five-times higher than for vaccinated people.” https://www.ruv.is/frett/2021/08/19/unvaccinated-five-times-...

[boboche]

Look at the death rates now compared to last year’s wave in countries that have a higher vaccination rate. Not saying its a miracle or perfect, but the numbers are speaking. I’m not for booster shots or being vaccinated x times, heck, I had a problem with requiring 2 shots for something that is not 95%+ effective. But after doing the maths of probability of infection, probability of sick or long term covid vs vaccination issues… I didn’t like the conclusion but I’m not in denial and trying to find information to confirm my initial bias, I took the second shot. All this said, I won’t accept anything else before a full year or higher % now.

[HWR_14]

> From this pov I understand why some are hesitant to be vaccinated in this phase of the pandemic

So your take away from someone complaining about the long recovery time from an accident after putting on his seatbelt and having the airbag deploy (which is annoying at the moment) is that we should remove those features because other people in other accidents without them had less severe injuries?

[bluejekyll]

Given the timelines mentioned, vaccinated in mid July, got sick mid August, it looks like the peak effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine after the second shot take 15-21 days to kick in. The virus can take up to 12 days before becoming sick/symptomatic. Rough math: (Aug 21) - (9 days sick) - (12 day incubation) = (~July 31 infection date). This would appear to fall in the time period of not yet being fully inoculated, if they were unlucky with the timelines.

They got unlucky, which sucks. I wish the best for the GP, but the important thing is that this anecdote doesn’t necessarily represent a breakthrough case. But even if it did, the Pfizer vaccine is 96% effective at protecting people, so 4% are still going to get sick. All of this is inline with all the data I’ve seen at least. For this particular case we don’t even need to discuss the recent data showing Pfizer (and possibly Moderna) dropping to 80ish% effectiveness after four-five months.

Literally all the data says people are safer getting vaccinated.

[paulryanrogers]

What about the point of view would make since hesitant to get vaccinated?

Without the vaccine likelihood of hospitalization is even higher.

[lamontcg]

Virus kicks his ass even though he's vaccinated, and you're drawing the conclusion that the vaccines can't be trusted, rather than unvaccinated exposure to the virus will be 10 times worse... You may not be good at logic.