CowtownEng said:

---

2. Provincetown is an extremely popular vacation spot for gay men; the vaccine may have a different effectiveness in this subpopulation than the general population.

---

OK, I'll bite.

Why would the vaccine have a lower effectiveness in gay men?

TarponChaser said:

---

CowtownEng said:

---

2. Provincetown is an extremely popular vacation spot for gay men; the vaccine may have a different effectiveness in this subpopulation than the general population.

---

OK, I'll bite.

Why would the vaccine have a lower effectiveness in gay men?

---

The prevelance of HIV in that community is likely much higher than the general population. That, itself, could result in lower effectiveness. But that's just one possibility - there are many.

KidDoc said:

---

From the linked study:

Quote:

---

Among the 469 cases in Massachusetts residents, 346 (74%) occurred in persons who were fully vaccinated; of these, 301 (87%) were male, with a median age of 42 years. Vaccine products received by persons experiencing breakthrough infections were Pfizer-BioNTech (159; 46%), Moderna (131; 38%), and Janssen (56; 16%); among fully vaccinated persons in the Massachusetts general population, 56% had received Pfizer-BioNTech, 38% had received Moderna, and 7% had received Janssen vaccine products. Among persons with breakthrough infection, 274 (79%) reported signs or symptoms, with the most common being cough, headache, sore throat, myalgia, and fever. Among fully vaccinated symptomatic persons, the median interval from completion of 14 days after the final vaccine dose to symptom onset was 86 days (range = 6178 days). Among persons with breakthrough infection, four (1.2%) were hospitalized, and no deaths were reported. Real-time RT-PCR Ct values in specimens from 127 fully vaccinated patients (median = 22.77) were similar to those among 84 patients who were unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown (median = 21.54) (Figure 2).

---

I added the bold for emphasis. This is new data, you are quoting data prior to the spread of the Delta variant which the vaccines don't seem to help as far as mild infection and community spread. They do seem to be very effective at preventing death and hospitalization even with delta.

---

Thanks for the specifics.how do you account for state wide data coming from highly vaccinated states like Vermont and Maine and their comparatively minute number of cases?

The Massachusetts outbreak centered on a party week for gay men.

bay fan said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

From the linked study:

Quote:

---

Among the 469 cases in Massachusetts residents, 346 (74%) occurred in persons who were fully vaccinated; of these, 301 (87%) were male, with a median age of 42 years. Vaccine products received by persons experiencing breakthrough infections were Pfizer-BioNTech (159; 46%), Moderna (131; 38%), and Janssen (56; 16%); among fully vaccinated persons in the Massachusetts general population, 56% had received Pfizer-BioNTech, 38% had received Moderna, and 7% had received Janssen vaccine products. Among persons with breakthrough infection, 274 (79%) reported signs or symptoms, with the most common being cough, headache, sore throat, myalgia, and fever. Among fully vaccinated symptomatic persons, the median interval from completion of 14 days after the final vaccine dose to symptom onset was 86 days (range = 6178 days). Among persons with breakthrough infection, four (1.2%) were hospitalized, and no deaths were reported. Real-time RT-PCR Ct values in specimens from 127 fully vaccinated patients (median = 22.77) were similar to those among 84 patients who were unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown (median = 21.54) (Figure 2).

---

I added the bold for emphasis. This is new data, you are quoting data prior to the spread of the Delta variant which the vaccines don't seem to help as far as mild infection and community spread. They do seem to be very effective at preventing death and hospitalization even with delta.

---

Thanks for the specifics.how do you account for state wide data coming from highly vaccinated states like Vermont and Maine and their comparatively minute number of cases?

---

Haven't skipped a beat at work since the beginning. Over 500 people whose average age is about 45 and in a outdoor/indoor setting. Worse it got was about 10 people who popped positive about a year ago. Of course many more were sent home for precautionary reasons. Masks haven't been mandated for the last 6 months too.

74OA said:

---

Capitol Ag said:

---

Zobel said:

---

It's hard to accept, but I think most of the confusion is because we simply don't know. There's a huge amount in medicine that we just don't know, and we're barreling through what would normally be decades of research in months right now. You've got scientists who are used to speaking in limited terms and qualifying things that they don't know, and you've got politicians (some of whom used to be scientists) who have specific outcomes they're trying to achieve.

If you are convinced that the best way forward is for everyone to be vaccinated, it weakens your position a lot to say "I don't know if it will help". For every person who actually had covid, there's some number of people who didn't or thought they did and won't get the vaccine because you say that. And that's just one example. This isn't to defend the messaging of our policy makers - it's been crap. But it does explain some of their behavior.

I'd love to live in a world where people could present scientific evidence to the general public and say - here's what we know, here's what we don't, here's our conclusion, you make a decision - and have the general public make good decisions accordingly. Unfortunately I don't think that matches the world we live in. I've seen a shocking amount of both scientific illiteracy resulting in really bad misunderstandings as well as what can only be described as intentional misinformation / disinformation / propaganda being consumed and repeated by people who should honestly know better.

I mean there are people who genuinely believe the vaccines are 99% graphene because of twitter. Or that the CDC's PCR test can't tell the difference between flu and sars cov 2. That is not hypothetical, both of those and other similar things including overt CCP propaganda have been not only posted but repeated on this site... by people with college degrees, who presumably represent above-average intelligence and education. It's not an encouraging picture.

---

Agree. My biggest issue with all of this is I just DO NOT want another mask mandate. At this point, if masking is to protect the unvaccinated, than that's on them, not me. I am fine with those deciding not to vaccinate. But at the same time, I refuse to go back to draconian mandates to "protect others". That's not my problem, especially when there is a freaking vaccine.

---

I'm in your camp, but am still willing to endure masks a little longer to protect those with underlying vulnerabilities who only need a trivial exposure to Delta to be in trouble, and to keep the virus from going home to young kids who are not yet eligible for vaccine, but who are increasingly being hurt by Delta.

But, quite soon, I'd go so far as to allow insurance companies not to cover covid-related hospitalization costs for those who have chosen not to protect themselves. Those extremely high ICU costs are passed on to all the rest of us via increasing insurance rates, and with a free, safe, effective vaccine available, that's unacceptable. Your body, your choice--now fully own the consequences.

---

Bingo! I am completely with you. Insurance companies ought to be allowed to exclude Covid but sadly, that won't help with a huge faction of unvaccinated, uninsured. That would be an interesting statistic to know. I suspect it's very high.

CowtownEng said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

From the linked study:

Quote:

---

Among the 469 cases in Massachusetts residents, 346 (74%) occurred in persons who were fully vaccinated; of these, 301 (87%) were male, with a median age of 42 years. Vaccine products received by persons experiencing breakthrough infections were Pfizer-BioNTech (159; 46%), Moderna (131; 38%), and Janssen (56; 16%); among fully vaccinated persons in the Massachusetts general population, 56% had received Pfizer-BioNTech, 38% had received Moderna, and 7% had received Janssen vaccine products. Among persons with breakthrough infection, 274 (79%) reported signs or symptoms, with the most common being cough, headache, sore throat, myalgia, and fever. Among fully vaccinated symptomatic persons, the median interval from completion of 14 days after the final vaccine dose to symptom onset was 86 days (range = 6178 days). Among persons with breakthrough infection, four (1.2%) were hospitalized, and no deaths were reported. Real-time RT-PCR Ct values in specimens from 127 fully vaccinated patients (median = 22.77) were similar to those among 84 patients who were unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown (median = 21.54) (Figure 2).

---

I added the bold for emphasis. This is new data, you are quoting data prior to the spread of the Delta variant which the vaccines don't seem to help as far as mild infection and community spread. They do seem to be very effective at preventing death and hospitalization even with delta.

---

The vaccines do seem less effective against delta, but there are a couple of other factors from Provincetown that nobody seems to mention:

1. What was the total number of attendees that were vaccinated? What was the total number of attendees that were not vaccinated? Considering the location, it's reasonable to assume that a significant number, but not all, were vaccinated. This may be counter intuitive, but as a percentage of total sub-populations (i.e. vaccinated vs. unvaccinated), it's entirely plausible that on a percentage basis the vaccines performed very well. Unfortunately, the average person will never know this due to the hyperbolic news media and social media echo chambers.

2. Provincetown is an extremely popular vacation spot for gay men; the vaccine may have a different effectiveness in this subpopulation than the general population.

---

Not sure I see any link to number 2 but I could see a link to poorly handled vaccines since the statistic appears far outside the mean.

GAC06 said:

---

The Massachusetts outbreak centered on a party week for gay men.

---

Did you take notes on if they were all from MA? You really believe being gay makes one more likely to catch Covid? I suspect you do.

thirdcoast said:

---

Quote:

---

Data from multiple studies still show vaccination has a higher efficacy than natural immunity

---

Those studies are based on higher spike antibody levels and assumption that means higher immunity. But that has now been proven wrong as vaccine breakthrough skyrockets, while natural reinfection rate stays relatively stable in face of Delta. In other words, real world outcomes in the population trump scientific assumptions based on lab tests/studies.

Vaccine performance is so bad that the CDC had to stop reporting on breakthrough infection. Yes, they stopped counting. The sheep don't even care.

---

What do you mean here re: vaccine breakthrough skyrockets, while natural reinfection rates stays stable. Are you talking about vaccine antibodys (spike) vs. Natural covid antibodies and their relative depletion?

BTW, go see and update your Texas Cares Antibody thread. I got my 3rd test (Pfizer only, no covid) yesterday and posted results, and my wife (covid Jan, Pfizer May) will be getting hers any day now.

thirdcoast said:

---

"Breakthrough" is an infection in vaccinated after their immunized response. So "breakthrough" is failure of the vaccine, while "reinfection" is failure of natural immune response. So the number of breakthrough cases skyrocketed 10 fold between April and July with Delta. We didnt see that with the over +165M people with natural immunity in US.

Awesome on the TX cares...I'm hoping to update my second blood draw soon.

---

So if breakthroughs were 10x, what was reinfections for relative comparison... ?x

KidDoc said:

---

Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021 | MMWR (cdc.gov)

My take on the new data from the recent delta COVID outbreak among the vaccinated:

Current vaccines seem to not prevent MILD infection with delta. It seems to be able to still get in your nose/throat and make a minor cold and you can spread it to others during this phase. The vaccines DO seem to be able to prevent severe invasive infection.

I suspect a delta booster will be on the market within 6 months.

If you have ANY risk factor for severe disease please get vaccinated ASAP. If you already had COVID you are likely protected anyway (for a currently unknown duration) so I would wait for a newer vaccine if you already have wild antibodies.

This reinforces my stance that healthy kids do not need vaccine especially since they already have a very very very low risk of severe disease and the vaccines do not seem to help prevent spread in the community.

---

I find that paper problematic. They compare fully vaccinated to the group including unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unknown status. Seems that the relevant comparison should be vaccinated to unvaccinated. It is especially problematic that the comparison group included partially vaccinated individuals. It isn't like you have 0 protection between your first dose and 2 weeks after your second dose. There was a lot of analysis that suggested 1 dose provided significant protection.

Also, if you look at their metric of comparison, they are using PCR cycles and the vaccinated group is >1 PCR cycle more to get to the threshold, on average. Since PCR produces exponential growth, that is a power of 2 difference in viral load.

What would the difference have been if they compared to unvaccinated only and not the partially vaccinated?

And I just responded that youre applying superiority too broadly. It may very be the case that infection with original type gives immunity vs delta than the current vaccines. I'd say that looks to be true. But that doesn't mean it will be true for the next variant, or that the both will have the same duration - one or the other may be better against hypothetical 2022 variant, and one or the other may last longer. We don't know yet, and that's ok.

No, I'm saying that the question of recovered immunity vs vaccine induced immunity has at least three parts

-- which infection did you recover from / which vaccine did you get
and
-- what infection are you testing against
and
-- how long after infection recovery / vaccination is the test

I don't have a firm opinion about any of it, even the latest results, because I don't think the tests have been particularly good. You have a problem of ascertainment bias for both groups, since we'd expect both breakthrough infections and re-infections to be mild. You also have issues of age bias in distribution of both previous infections and vaccinations. I don't think we know, but I'm cool with the idea that from casual observation it seems like delta has more breakthrough than reinfection. That's not fact, though.

That isn't to say that against the original variant, reinfections may be more common than breakthroughs. And it also isn't to say that against the next hypothetical variant, reinfections (from alpha or delta, for example) may be more common than infections vs breakthroughs. And it isn't to say that next year we may find that vaccine induced immunity may last longer than natural (or it could easily be the other way around). We don't know.

My only issue is you're making a complicated issue into a binary one, and applying a limited set of observations way more broadly than they should be applied.

Inoculation rate going rapidly up in locations where Delta infections are going up. Makes sense since those locations are also the ones with the lowest percent of population inoculated. GOOD

"Worries about the virus, growing confidence in the safety of vaccines and the influence of family and friends are all likely contributing to the increase in vaccine uptake, health authorities and residents say."

Fair enough. More data is better (unless you are the CDC) and in time we could see that reinfection rates on delta was lagging or susceptible to future variants.

On CDC, it's not a "conspiracy", they directly admit they purposely shifted focus to severe breakthrough cases only. It aligns perfectly with the shift from the WH to vaccines prevent hospitalization and death, instead of the spread.

I'm guessing you conveniently "have no opinion" on why CDC would shun data on mild disease spread for vaccinated, but not for unvaccinated.

Quote:

---

The CDC said when it announced the change in May that it would continue to collect data on breakthrough cases if the infections resulted in hospitalization or death a rare occurrence, since vaccines provide significant protection. The decision to stop tracking non-severe cases was made to "help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance," the agency says on its website.


"The more data you have, the better decisions you can make. So why would they (CDC) knowingly turn away data which historically has been really important to have?" said Michael Kinch, director of the Center for Research Innovation in Business at Washington University in St. Louis. "For an administration that said they'll be driven by the science, it makes no scientific sense."

---

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/coronavirus/cdc-scaled-back-hunt-for-breakthrough-cases-just-as-delta-grew

I don't know why they did it. The conspiracy theory is saying that you know they did it for some nefarious reason or with some kind of intent, to hide the truth or something like that.