[listenallyall]

From the report in your link...

> During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection

Full vax is only 80% effective? This is quite a bit lower than what the news has been reporting, in the mid-to-high 90's

[jasonlaramburu]

>> During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection

You conveniently omitted the end of the sentence you quoted. The full sentence is "During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline workers." Frontline health workers are at elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19, so it's reasonable that more of them would contract the virus, even with an effective vaccine.

Did you intentionally misrepresent the results of the study by leaving this part out or was this just a careless omission?

[angelzen]

CDC has instituted a policy where vaccinated people were instructed to test on symptoms, whereas unvaccinated people were instructed to test on contact with infected person. In a frontline healthcare setting, workers are constantly in contact with infected persons, thus the difference in testing regimens is maximized. Given that asymptomatic cases are a majority of the cases, such skewed data collection process will result in significant data taint. The faulty policy was active March-July 2021.

TLDR. Any study making 'vaccine effectiveness against infection' claims based on US data overlapping March-July 2021 is subject to potential data taint and perhaps should be retracted. I'd rather look elsewhere for reliable epidemiological data.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777536

https://archive.is/PB8Q6/again?url=https://www.nytimes.com/l...

[jasonlaramburu]

> In a frontline healthcare setting, workers are constantly in contact with infected persons, thus the difference in testing regimens is maximized. Given that asymptomatic cases are a majority of the cases, such skewed data collection process will result in significant data taint.

I don’t see how this claim is supported by data. The studies referenced showed the vaccine was less effective (vs control) for frontline healthcare workers than the general population (80% vs 95%). If the data were really tainted as you claim, and there is systematic undercounting of asymptomatic breakthrough cases, we would expect the vaccine to perform as well or better in a frontline setting as it does in the general population.

My point was that the parent blatantly misrepresented the results of this study to make a point supporting anti-vaxx positions. Why is this necessary?

[angelzen]

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps you'd get a better response if you were to formulate your questions in a less pointed way. For example, try 'covid vaccine sceptics' instead of 'anti-vaxx'. I can't speak for the parent poster, here are some thoughts:

* As I mentioned, US data is not very credible because of a data collection fumble.

* There are legitimate concerns of vaccine effectiveness dropping over time: either VE is constant over time, or boosters are necessary, but not both at the same time. Note Israel is at 40% population boosted.

* Recent Canada data is the most promising with VE against Delta infection of 87-92%. The catch is that the measurement stops at 5 months. Perhaps mix & match + large interval between shots is the golden recipe!

* OTOH, UK data is significantly less rosy. Assuming we believe PHE data (VE is negative in 30+yo age group) or the corrected version (VE is <50% in most age groups), something doesn't add up.

May the winter season be light so we can hopefully put the covid crisis past us.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-vaccine-effectiveness-...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

https://twitter.com/LGradaigh/status/1436095950561419280

[jasonlaramburu]

>try 'covid vaccine sceptics' instead of 'anti-vaxx'

Call it whatever you want, the position is still unsupported by data. Ironically, that side is typically against any form of 'political correctness.'

The UK data also doesn't support what you claim elsewhere in the thread. When adjusted for confounders, unvaccinated case rates are higher across all age groups in the UK according to the twitter link you cite above.

[angelzen]

We can geek confounders all day long. At the end of the day, after all confounders have been accounted by reality, the epi data is what the epi data is. Asking for someone's vax passport status (in UK) says little about the risk of the respective individual being infected or not at a given point in time.

Furthermore people vastly overestimate the risk of infection a healthy person poses. This has got beyond grotesque, we are excluding healthy people from society on account that sometime someday they might get infected with covid. As if they can't quarantine for a few weeks if the need arises.

The discounting of time-tested pandemic control methods, from denying natural immunity for people with past covid infection to denying quarantine-on-symptoms as an effective mechanism for controlling spread, its perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the official response to the pandemic.

Funny enough, if you'd ask me, I'd tell you to get vaccinated if you are >18, and wait for more long term data and/or novavax if you are <18. But that doesn't matter. All that it matters is whether we can somehow mess with the lives of those that have the slightest skepticism re a novel technology with yet to be proven long term effects and real life pandemic control results (see UK, Israel, Singapore).

Human rights? Freedom of thought? Bodily autonomy? Obsolete.

[dragonwriter]

> Full vax is only 80% effective? This is quite a bit lower than what the news has been reporting, in the mid-to-high 90's

mid-to-high 90s is cited as the effectiveness at preventing severe COVID or hospitalization. Effectiveness at preventing detectable infection is obviously going to be lower, because asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections can occur.

[listenallyall]

No, the CDC says

Based on evidence from clinical trials in people 16 years and older, the Pfizer-BioNTech (COMIRNATY) vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different...

"Laboratory-confirmed infection". Not severe or hospitalized.

[jasonlaramburu]

You misrepresented the results of the original study as per above. The vaccine is 80% effective at preventing infection in frontline health workers (who are at elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19). It is 95% effective at preventing infection across the general population.