Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with.
Go look at Singapore. 80%+ vaccination rate (Pfizer or Moderna), with regular mass testing.
About 65% of new cases are in fully vaccinated but the new cases are still stacking up. So yes it reduces the risk, but not by 7x. This is backed up by the recent Lancet paper which showed about a ~30% decrease in risk of infection.
They provide daily updates but have been changing the detail level and categorization to get away from pure case numbers.
Go back to late August to see the breakdown of cases across fully, partially and unvaccinated individuals. The vaccines clearly work prevent serious illness, but don’t seem to be slowing the spread that much.
The MOH used to also breakdown daily deaths into vaccinated and unvaccinated, but recently stopped. I suspect (and they confirmed a few cases) where the deaths are often fully vaccinated.
Of course they don’t want to provide data for the vaccine hesitant to call out, but they have been changing their narrative so often it’s starting to be a problem.
So on one hand we have detailed data from UK and Singapore with breakdown by age/date/vax status and limited VE agains infection, on the other hand opaque charts (US...) with only aggregate numbers, showing 6-10x odds in favor of vax. The lack of detailed epi USA data conspicuously continues.
I did sanity check one UK aggregate chart touted in a sibling thread claiming, absolute numbers, unvax infections >> vax infections in UK. There were egregious Simpson's issues, all age groups >18yo had (significantly) more vax infections than unvax infections. The <18yo case load was a huge outlier, dominating the aggregate numbers. Fireable offense for a data analyst.
https://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/update-on-loc...
The Singapore one isn’t perfect since those at higher risk of exposure (medical workers) tend to be vaccinated so that isn’t corrected for. But that would also disappear as you start to get most of the population vaccinated.
IDK why anyone would deny this observable reality.
UK publishes the vax/unvax numbers broken down by age groups. See Table 2 in https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/.... Raw numbers:
cases between week 40 and week 43 2021
unvax vax 1dose
under 18 336893 818 36000
18-29 24097 33649 9500
30-39 25832 71492 7800
40-49 15717 130686 4500
50-59 6701 99722 2000
60-69 2484 56779 800
70-79 917 34305 300
≥80 471 12339 200
2. Under 18 has a large case number, which dominates the totals. Some issues:
2.1. Schools have strict testing and tracing policies. The large case numbers may simply an effect of higher testing rates for the respective population.
2.2. Related to 2.1., there are two ways to count cases: PCR cases and symptomatic cases. In case of large case numbers outliers, the difference between the two measures can explain a large difference, though it is impossible to independently verify that a consistent measure was applied for all age groups.
2.3. Vaccination in 12-17 was only recently introduced. VE decreases over time. Studies disagrees by how much. At six months time, for Pfizer I've seen 55%-75%, from a high of 90%. Closer to the vaccination event VE is higher, thus the number of vax cases is temporarily lower. A more realistic assessment assessment ought to a. break down under 18 in to 0-5, 5-11, 12-17, and wait 6 months post vaccination campaign. Note that VE is also a somewhat misleading metric, 90% means 9/10 case reduction, 50% merely 1/2; a small percentage drop in VE at the high values mean a large increase in cases.
3. In some age categories, e.g. 50-59, unvax share of the cases is as small as 6%. Not sure (*) what the unvax rate in UK is for that age group, the reports says somewhere in the low teens, that number has been contested. But 6% is low enough by itself. If that doesn't make you wonder about the official line "unvaccinated people were 6.8 times more likely to get COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.", then nothing will ever do.
Can't speak about US data because US is, for some reason, very tight lipped when it comes to publishing basic epi data with breakdown by date, age and vax status. If you have a link to the equivalent of the UK PHE vaccine surveillance report for any US state, please share.
(*) Apparently UK is not sure about the vax rates either, because apparently UK doesn't know how many people of a given age live in the country. That is a story for another time.
This is of course exactly what you did above.
It also says "We have published a blog to accompany this section of the vaccine surveillance report" https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2021/11/02/transparency-and-data-u...
You should not expect ZOE study data to match UK Govt data exactly, they use different methods and check different symptoms. This is that theme that Prof. Spector talks about often.
Exactly. Neither should aggregate numbers that various US states and Prof. Spector use to spread fear, acrimony and stigma should be used to estimate VE, or mislead the audiences to estimate VE by themselves. Notice how the ZOE video you linked lacks the intellectual honesty to display the same disclaimer. His own website says "Incidence estimates were updated on 21 July 2021.". He's basically fabricating numbers, for all we know just as accurate as Prof. Ferguson. This is no better than the "antivax garbage" some people are so keen on summarily calling out.
Here are some longish term studies and preprints for Pfizer's VE against infection.
UK, 3 months VEaI = 75%. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7
Qatar, 3 months VEaI = 70%, 6 months VEaI = 12.8%, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114
Sweden, <50yo, 2-4 months VEaI = 83%, 4-6 months VEaI = 50%, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410
US, veterans, 3 months VEaI = 78%, 6 months VEaI = 50%, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21254636v...
Two notes:
* VE against infection drops over time. Sadly, I am not aware of any reliable literature for VE after 9 or 12 months. Unfortunately Pfizer killed their own critical trials, which had a solid headstart, by vaccinating the control arm after 6 months. But the trend is clear, and worrisome.
* 80% VE => 1:5 infection odds. 75% VE => 1:4 infection odds. 50% VE => 1:2 infection odds. 12% VE, it's a wash. Numbers like 1:6.8 infection odds this long after the vaccination campaign are fantasy.
This is a very bold partisan claim, in fact it is insult. It comes across as another Paranoid fantasy out of US politics, irrelevant to the UK. I'm no longer interested in anything that you have to say. Good day.
They literally changed their formula because the trends in the unvaccinated population didn't to conform to their prior biases. Though the formula details are still a mystery.
"Last week, we reported a plateau in new COVID cases based on our methods at the time, which relied on a small number of unvaccinated people in our dataset compared with the wider UK population. The number of daily new cases in the unvaccinated group appeared to be dropping which in turn resulted in our overall numbers trending down. This meant the figures were accurate to our dataset but didn’t represent the full picture in the UK."
https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-estimates-updated-vacci...
I'll grant that UK has no vaccine mandates (including for kids!) and none of the craziness. Have a great one!