Believe that is a weekly rate, so times that by 52 for your yearly chance. Still not compelling though.
Hard data on Vaccine effectiveness
7,687 Views |
111 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by AggieKatie2
andrago94 said:
Yes, likely the numbers in September and October look horrible for the vaccinated. That's why the boosters.
People have been getting boosters well before Sept and october. Not uncommon for a vaccines effectiveness to decline over time.
JB99 said:andrago94 said:
Yes, likely the numbers in September and October look horrible for the vaccinated. That's why the boosters.
People have been getting boosters well before Sept and october. Not uncommon for a vaccines effectiveness to decline over time.
Yep. I know I get shots every few weeks for chicken pox.
JB99 said:IslanderAg04 said:JB99 said:uneedastraw said:
How does the CDC measure less likely to be hospitalized or less likely to die? The virus effects people in different ways. There is no way to know that I would have been hospitalized with the virus today without the vaccine versus having the vaccine.
They count how many had to be hospitalized that had the vax vs. Didn't. Is this hard to understand? It's a statistic based on sampling 100,000 people. When you get a large enough sample size it usually accounts for all the nuances. It's not a pr2dictor for you personally, no one knows that including you. So the best we have to go on are statistics which provide us a probability. Then you can decide what level of risk you are comfortable with and make your own decision. This thread had nothing to do with mandates, I'm anti-mandate. I just thought it would be helpful for people to see this data as they make their own choice.
100% matters when the disease has greater effects against, the sick, unhealthy and elderly.
So you think the sick, unhealthy, and elderly are more likely to be unvaccinated in this study? In real life the sick, unhealthy, and elderly are overwhelmingly in the vaccinated column.
That's the problem. There is no clarity in data other than vaxed and unvaxed. If you want a true study, generality has huge gaps.
Yup. Light case of polio thanks to my jab every 6 months.
JB99 said:IslanderAg04 said:JB99 said:uneedastraw said:
How does the CDC measure less likely to be hospitalized or less likely to die? The virus effects people in different ways. There is no way to know that I would have been hospitalized with the virus today without the vaccine versus having the vaccine.
They count how many had to be hospitalized that had the vax vs. Didn't. Is this hard to understand? It's a statistic based on sampling 100,000 people. When you get a large enough sample size it usually accounts for all the nuances. It's not a pr2dictor for you personally, no one knows that including you. So the best we have to go on are statistics which provide us a probability. Then you can decide what level of risk you are comfortable with and make your own decision. This thread had nothing to do with mandates, I'm anti-mandate. I just thought it would be helpful for people to see this data as they make their own choice.
100% matters when the disease has greater effects against, the sick, unhealthy and elderly.
So you think the sick, unhealthy, and elderly are more likely to be unvaccinated in this study? In real life the sick, unhealthy, and elderly are overwhelmingly in the vaccinated column.
There could be many things at play:
1. Location. Rural areas more vaccine hesitant. Also areas less likely impacted by earlier waves of covid. So those communities were just delayed in experiencing their 1st wave but not a sign that vaccine is effective.
2. Behavior. People who are vaccine resistant probably also socialize and are more comfortable with close social gatherings. So unvaccinated have more exposure. The mom who has her kids lockdowned and never leaves home but is double vaxxed isn't catching covid, because she isn't living life.
3. Asymptomatic tendencies. People who are asymptomatic are likely in the younger adult range. Also stronger non-vax group. Those people will spread it more quickly by having more interaction with people infected.
4. Testing bias. I have covered this plenty of times.
So, now you can add Natural Immunity into the mix. You're damn near bulletproof.Ol_Ag_02 said:
Pfizer 126 / 100K population
Guess my wife and I should play the lottery. Both vaccinated, both caught the vid in the same week.
.00015876% chance of that occurring if my math is correct.
JB99 said:
Feel free to follow the link and draw your own conclusions.
6x less likely to be infected
12x less likely to be hospitalized (14x in the 18-49 age range)
10x less likely to die
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
This is the most concise CDC report I have found concerning how the different vaccines are performing in the real world with respect to cases, deaths, and age.
There is a large data lag as the information is only thru September 4. But that is typical for CDC when dealing with deaths.
the data is based on occurrences per week per 100,000 population.
The week ending September 4.
Testing positive:
No Vax 666 / 100K population
Fully Vax 114 / 100K population
Moderna 87 / 100K population
Pfizer 126 / 100K population
J&J 150 / 100K population
Deaths:
No Vax 9.14 / 100K population
Fully Vax 0.74 / 100K population
Moderna 0.47 / 100K population
Pfizer 0.88 / 100K population
J&J 1.70 / 100K population
NvM saw error