In this study, there were more infections in the vaccinated group. That defies logic, though, and intuitively the infection rate of the vaccinated group cannot be higher than that of the unvaccinated. That's why I mentioned confounding factors.
From this study and others, I believe the vaccines used in the US do not provide substantial protection against infection by delta.
> Do you understand that the Delta variant outcompeted other variants in India, with a vaccination rate lower than 10%?
Yes, which means that it is more infectious. Its resistance (or lack of) to the vaccines isn't really relevant in a country with a 10% vaccination rate.
The fact that it's outcompeting other variants in countries with relatively high vaccination rates likely means that the vaccines are less effective against it.
> Beyond that, please don't cite subgroups of data when we have larger groups.
We're specifically talking about delta here, and I'm unaware of a study based upon a larger cohort where a statistically significant number of cases were sequenced, the variant determined, and the dominant variant found to be delta.
> By selecting specific outbreaks despite larger data you can p-hack any conclusion.
Again - show me the larger data here.
> From this study and others, I believe the vaccines used in the US do not provide substantial protection against infection by delta.
This is a common error, but an error nonetheless. Take an extreme example of a population that is 100%. Any clusters of cases that pop up will thus be 100% in vaccinated folks. Of course, would would never see that and think "well, I should be unvaccinated, because 0% of infections happen for unvaccinated people."
Focus on this conflation that you are making:
> there were more infections in the vaccinated group and > and intuitively the infection rate of the vaccinated group cannot be higher than that of the unvaccinated.
You are conflating total number of infections with infection rate, which is what is leading you astray. Imagine you have 100 people. 90 are vaccinated. 10 aren't. Imagine that all 100 of those people are exposed to the Delta variant, and 10% of vaccinated folks end up testing positive, while 50% of of unvaccinated folks end up positive. In pure numbers, you end up with 9 vaccinated folks who are positive, and 5 unvaccinated folks who are positive. Voila, more infections in the vaccinated group! But, clearly, that's misleading, because comparing raw infection numbers is meaningless without also looking at percentages vaccinated.
Unless you're going to make a rigorous statistical analysis, no, we had studies on this subject with a proper methodology and this is not what they found : https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891 (88% efficacy found).
>Yes, which means that it is more infectious. Its resistance (or lack of) to the vaccines isn't really relevant in a country with a 10% vaccination rate.
>The fact that it's outcompeting other variants in countries with relatively high vaccination rates likely means that the vaccines are less effective against it.
No one is disputing this. The point of contention is that the person I'm replying to had the thesis these variants arose because of vaccines, which is simply not true.
> We're specifically talking about delta here, and I'm unaware of a study based upon a larger cohort where a statistically significant number of cases were sequenced, the variant determined, and the dominant variant found to be delta.
You've not been looking then. Entire countries sample variants in the population.
For example full vaccinated people could just act more careless because they feel protected. How is the severe illness and death rate in both groups is a more important aspect.
Do you claim that the Delta variant is not more infective in non-vaccinated individuals?
Do you understand that the Delta variant outcompeted other variants in India, with a vaccination rate lower than 10%?
Beyond that, please don't cite subgroups of data when we have larger groups. By selecting specific outbreaks despite larger data you can p-hack any conclusion.