[s0ulphire]

Worth remembering that applying anecdotal experience to an entire world population in terms of generating statistics is unlikely to be accurate, and very much at risk of confirmation bias.

Most vaccines are only 65% efficacious in preventing infection from Delta. So even amongst 100% double vaccinated crowds, 1 in 3 will contract covid if exposed.

The real difference is the reduction in serious complications and hospitalization and death. Going off stats from my state (NSW in Australia), 78% of people hospitalized were completely unvaccinated. 19% had one shot. 2% had both shots. Those numbers are really, really hard to argue against IMO.

edit: I should add, it's even worse when you consider that 80% of our state is 100% vaccinated, meaning that the 78% figure above is true despite being from a pool that makes up only 20% of our state's population.

[RattleyCooper]

I mean I'm not basing anything on personal anecdotes, I'm simply stating that my personal observation supports what a scientific study says. When there is evidence to back up an anecdote it ceases to be an anecdote.

And it's not like I'm making decisions based on my coworker's family members getting covid lol. This is a much more complex issue, and that really kind of reduces the entire thing to the point of absurdity.

[s0ulphire]

> I'm simply stating that my personal observation supports what a scientific study says. When there is evidence to back up an anecdote it ceases to be an anecdote.

That's actually a really good example of confirmation bias :) it can be a real sneaky logical fallacy! In this case you have no controls in place to verify the what, why, or how of those people's infections, but because it matches what you think it should you've accepted it as further evidence that confirms the proposition of the study. Anecdotal evidence remains anecdotal whether or not it correlates with a position in either direction.

[RattleyCooper]

> it can be a real sneaky logical fallacy!

So is the argument from fallacy... If you want to argue against science then you should bring your own evidence because claiming that someone agreeing that their observations match 3rd party scientific observations is a fallacy is beyond silly.

[nojokes]

Just a small correction. 1/3 of those who would have gotten covid when not vaccinated will get covid.

[22c]

Based on this, it should be expected that the 2% figure you quoted would increase over time. I would say in Australia a lot of people are still in the "honeymoon phase" of immunity where it hasn't started to significantly wane amongst the population of the fully vaccinated.

[s0ulphire]

Yes exactly right, which is what the Israeli data has indicated. It's not a huge decrease, but there's a definitive slow decrease in efficacy - worth noting it's nearly entirely against the Delta variant again though. So even though 2 shots will continue to keep you moderately safe, the argument is that there's no good reason to not get a booster (just like a flu shot every year).

edit: to quote specifics from the study

> Our findings are in line with findings from the randomized trial of the BNT162b2 vaccine, which showed a reduction in vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection from 96% in the first 2 months after vaccination to 84% at 4 to 7 months after vaccination, when averaged over all age groups combined