Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, elroisees said:

Could that be caused by requiring masks until people are fully vaccinated, but not after full vaccination, so that the half-vaxed were masked?

There are so many possible moving parts and confounding factors on these things. 

It is my understanding that masks were required for all.  There were two housing units and I don't know how infections and vaccinations were dispersed among those two units.  So, there are many possible explanations.  And the fact that one died who was not vaccinated and none in the unvaccinated population is not statistically signivicant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

It is my understanding that masks were required for all.  There were two housing units and I don't know how infections and vaccinations were dispersed among those two units.  So, there are many possible explanations.  And the fact that one died who was not vaccinated and none in the unvaccinated population is not statistically signivicant.

The highly desperate hospitalization rate is statistically significant. The death is significant in that it fits with all other data on deaths from Covid between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, even if as a one-off it isn't conclusive.

Bill

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I don't see any information about length of time of incarceration for any of the population

Correct. Without that data one must suspect anything that appears to show that one vaccination is superior to two doses, as that does not fit the known data generally.

Bill

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Correct. Without that data one must suspect anything that appears to show that one vaccination is superior to two doses, as that does not fit the known data generally.

Bill

This is a small sample size; any conclusions about the data have to be carefully drawn, whether they are consistent with or contrary to our initial bias.   P values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant; the P-value for the death rate was 0.23

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

This is a small sample size; any conclusions about the data have to be carefully drawn, whether they are consistent with or contrary to our initial bias.   P values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant; the P-value for the death rate was 0.23

I don't disagree on the small sample sizes reducing the statistical value.

That said, the numbers are pretty strongly in line with larger models. People are much more likely to get seriously ill and require hospitalization and are more likely to die if they are not vaccinated. This is one more case that part of a much larger picture.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I don't disagree on the small sample sizes reducing the statistical value.

That said, the numbers are pretty strongly in line with larger models. People are much more likely to get seriously ill and require hospitalization and are more likely to die if they are not vaccinated. This is one more case that part of a much larger picture.

Bill

But I would argue that it isn't the statistical value of the study that is in question--it is the statistical significance of the variables.  The statistics here do not support a claim that the death incidence is any different in one group than the other.  Thus, these numbers are NOT in line with other models that suggest there is a difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But I would argue that it isn't the statistical value of the study that is in question--it is the statistical significance of the variables.  The statistics here do not support a claim that the death incidence is any different in one group than the other.  Thus, these numbers are NOT in line with other models that suggest there is a difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.  

I think that is quite a stretch. Broad models show a significant difference in death between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. We agree on that, correct?

The prison results are in line with what might be expected given the broader statistics. I agree that without the broader statistics that one could not give such a small number a lot of weight as a matter of statistics, but there was a death in the unvaccinated group which is unsurprising and no deaths in the much larger vaccinated cohort, which is also unsurprising.

Bill

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But I would argue that it isn't the statistical value of the study that is in question--it is the statistical significance of the variables.  The statistics here do not support a claim that the death incidence is any different in one group than the other.  Thus, these numbers are NOT in line with other models that suggest there is a difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.  

Not being statistically significant means absolutely nothing here, yeesh. It just means the numbers are too small. 

If we followed 10 vaccinated and 10 unvaccinated people, probably we'd have 0 deaths in either group. Then what, would you argue that the numbers were not in line with other models because the numbers didn't provide sufficient power to conclude anything?? That's completely ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I think that is quite a stretch. Broad models show a significant difference in death between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. We agree on that, correct?

The prison results are in line with what might be expected given the broader statistics. I agree that without the broader statistics that one could not give such a small number a lot of weight as a matter of statistics, but there was a death in the unvaccinated group which is unsurprising and no deaths in the much larger vaccinated cohort, which is also unsurprising.

Bill

 

 

Then what do you do with the data that is not in line--such as a lower incidence rate among the partially vaccinated?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Not being statistically significant means absolutely nothing here, yeesh. It just means the numbers are too small. 

If we followed 10 vaccinated and 10 unvaccinated people, probably we'd have 0 deaths in either group. Then what, would you argue that the numbers were not in line with other models because the numbers didn't provide sufficient power to conclude anything?? That's completely ridiculous. 

Because I can't conclude anything, I can not conclude that they are in line with previous studies.  I can't conclude that they are opposite of previous studies.  I can't conclude anything means I can't conclude anything.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Then what do you do with the data that is not in line--such as a lower incidence rate among the partially vaccinated?  

Now these clear anomalies are statistically significant? No. Clear outliers.

I expect there would be a good explanation if there was more info, but it could just be a quirk in a small sample.

I mean, what do you make of it?

We do agree that the death and hospitalization rates of unvaccinated people is much (much) higher that it is for the vaccinated, right?

Bill

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Now these clear anomalies are statistically significant? No. Clear outliers.

I expect there would be a good explanation if there was more info, but it could just be a quirk in a small sample.

I mean, what do you make of it?

We do agree that the death and hospitalization rates of unvaccinated people is much (much) higher that it is for the vaccinated, right?

Bill

 

 

The fact that it's not statistically significant means precisely that the chance of this happening randomly is over 1 in 20. So... it's not a low chance that it was an anomaly and it probably was. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really jumped out at me from the Texas prison data was that more than two-thirds of the breakthrough cases were in people who had been vaccinated with Pfizer 4-6 months before the outbreak — 83 of 122 cases. They started vaccinating with Pfizer in January, beginning with over 65s and those with the highest risk factors, so the vast majority of Pfizer recipients were not only vaccinated more than 4 months ago, they were also more likely to be older and to have obesity, hypertension, and a history of smoking. All Moderna shots were given less than 4 months before the outbreak, and the breakthrough rate for those was only 40%. They don't provide enough data to calculate a case rate for people who got Pfizer less than 4 months before infection, but the total case rate for all prisoners who were vaxxed between 2 & 4 months was 44%, so the rate for Pfizer recipients in that time range may have been similar to Moderna.

The very small difference in case rates between fully vaccinated prisoners (70%) and the 6 partially vaccinated prisoners (67%) was not statistically significant (p = 1.0).

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

The fact that it's not statistically significant means precisely that the chance of this happening randomly is over 1 in 20. So... it's not a low chance that it was an anomaly and it probably was. 

I will defer to your far superior expertise in such matters.

I managed (barely) to pull a good grade in my mandatory statistical analysis for political science majors class (eons ago), but never did my head seem more on the brink of explosion :biggrin:

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

What really jumped out at me from the Texas prison data was that more than two-thirds of the breakthrough cases were in people who had been vaccinated with Pfizer 4-6 months before the outbreak — 83 of 122 cases. They started vaccinating with Pfizer in January, beginning with over 65s and those with the highest risk factors, so the vast majority of Pfizer recipients were not only vaccinated more than 4 months ago, they were also more likely to have obesity, hypertension, and a history of smoking. All Moderna shots were given less than 4 months before the outbreak, and the breakthrough rate for those was only 40%. They don't provide enough data to calculate a case rate for people who got Pfizer less than 4 months before infection, but the total case rate for all prisoners who were vaxxed between 2 & 4 months was 44%, so the rate for Pfizer recipients in that time range may have been similar to Moderna.

The very small difference in case rates between fully vaccinated prisoners (70%) and the 6 partially vaccinated prisoners (67%) was not statistically significant (p = 1.0).

Goes for you too. LOL.

Blessed to have you both, I tell ya.

Bill

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

What really jumped out at me from the Texas prison data was that more than two-thirds of the breakthrough cases were in people who had been vaccinated with Pfizer 4-6 months before the outbreak — 83 of 122 cases. They started vaccinating with Pfizer in January, beginning with over 65s and those with the highest risk factors, so the vast majority of Pfizer recipients were not only vaccinated more than 4 months ago, they were also more likely to be older and to have obesity, hypertension, and a history of smoking. All Moderna shots were given less than 4 months before the outbreak, and the breakthrough rate for those was only 40%. They don't provide enough data to calculate a case rate for people who got Pfizer less than 4 months before infection, but the total case rate for all prisoners who were vaxxed between 2 & 4 months was 44%, so the rate for Pfizer recipients in that time range may have been similar to Moderna.

The very small difference in case rates between fully vaccinated prisoners (70%) and the 6 partially vaccinated prisoners (67%) was not statistically significant (p = 1.0).

As far as the different vaccines, 30% of those who had received Moderna had prior infections but less than 5% of the Pfizer receipients had previous infections, 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone concerned that if we get a booster now, it will work again pretty well against infection for about 4 months, and then we are back to square one, needing another booster in the middle of winter (and potentially another horrific wave)? Might it be preferable to wait with boosters until just prior to the holiday season? Transmission to my unvaxxed kids is of course a concern that would make me lean towards an earlier booster...(we are not in one of the worst areas of the country right now in terms of Delta)

Also, does anybody know if the states have actually planned for the many, many thousands of people who will all of a sudden be eligible in terms of vaccine supply and administration? My state is giving out hardly any vaccines right now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mom_to3 said:

Is anyone concerned that if we get a booster now, it will work again pretty well against infection for about 4 months, and then we are back to square one, needing another booster in the middle of winter (and potentially another horrific wave)? Might it be preferable to wait with boosters until just prior to the holiday season? Transmission to my unvaxxed kids is of course a concern that would make me lean towards an earlier booster...(we are not in one of the worst areas of the country right now in terms of Delta)

Also, does anybody know if the states have actually planned for the many, many thousands of people who will all of a sudden be eligible in terms of vaccine supply and administration? My state is giving out hardly any vaccines right now...

Hmmm... I mean, it looks like they work against severe illness for a good 6 months or so, so I'm hoping this one is good enough for the winter, too. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the CDC and I have a different opinion about what severe means...I really need to avoid steroids due to another medical condition, for instance, and I know people who've been sent home (so not counted as hospitalized) with double lung embolism.

Did you get a booster/third shot, Not_a_Number?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mom_to3 said:

Is anyone concerned that if we get a booster now, it will work again pretty well against infection for about 4 months, and then we are back to square one, needing another booster in the middle of winter (and potentially another horrific wave)? Might it be preferable to wait with boosters until just prior to the holiday season? Transmission to my unvaxxed kids is of course a concern that would make me lean towards an earlier booster...(we are not in one of the worst areas of the country right now in terms of Delta)

Also, does anybody know if the states have actually planned for the many, many thousands of people who will all of a sudden be eligible in terms of vaccine supply and administration? My state is giving out hardly any vaccines right now...

I'm not really concerned it's likely to work for a shorter time than the first one, and have pretty high hopes that the long gap before the third one will produce a much longer response. Of course, there's no way to know that until that much time has gone by. I saw the other day that the polio vaccine schedule for adults who haven't been vaccinated before is very similar to what we might end up with for the covid vaccine if it ends up as a three dose series:

Quote

 Unvaccinated adults at risk for poliovirus infection should get three doses of IPV:

  • two doses separated by 1 to 2 months, and
  • a third dose 6 to 12 months after the second dose.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mom_to3 said:

I think the CDC and I have a different opinion about what severe means...I really need to avoid steroids due to another medical condition, for instance, and I know people who've been sent home (so not counted as hospitalized) with double lung embolism.

Did you get a booster/third shot, Not_a_Number?

 I did, yeah. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we thinking that the criteria for boosters are going to be so broad that pretty much anyone who wants one will be able to get one? I mean, I can't see any reason why teachers would be eligible but not high school/college students for the same reasons, for example. They're in the same high risk setting for the same number of hours. I don't see any way they'll be able to verify when the categories are so vague. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Are we thinking that the criteria for boosters are going to be so broad that pretty much anyone who wants one will be able to get one? I mean, I can't see any reason why teachers would be eligible but not high school/college students for the same reasons, for example. They're in the same high risk setting for the same number of hours. I don't see any way they'll be able to verify when the categories are so vague. 

I dunno. As you can see, I got one without waiting for the wrangling to end. We're wasting our vaccines anyway and I didn't think it was immoral, although I know some people on here disagree. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I dunno. As you can see, I got one without waiting for the wrangling to end. We're wasting our vaccines anyway and I didn't think it was immoral, although I know some people on here disagree. 

yeah. I'm giving it some thought. For myself and for my high school kids, who spend a fair amount of time in high risk settings (i.e. orchestras/wind ensembles) and then come home to hang out with my unvaccinated kid. My teacher husband already got one totally legitimately under the immunosuppressed label. Thanks, psoriasis! 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mom_to3 said:

I guess another concern I have is that I am a Moderna person, and if I were to get a Moderna (or Pfizer) booster, with having to prove vaccination and boosters for employment, it would be pretty obvious later on that I lied if anybody wanted to get me in trouble...

Can anyone ask if you’re REALLY immune compromised, though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kokotg said:

Are we thinking that the criteria for boosters are going to be so broad that pretty much anyone who wants one will be able to get one? I mean, I can't see any reason why teachers would be eligible but not high school/college students for the same reasons, for example. They're in the same high risk setting for the same number of hours. I don't see any way they'll be able to verify when the categories are so vague. 

At this point, it looks like however broad the criteria are, they are only going to apply to people who had pfizer. With teachers vs college students, I think they would only be equivalent if they are similar ages. That’s an interesting question for an older college student. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mom_to3 said:

Well, one could argue it would send a pretty bad signal to my employer if I were so severely immune compromised as to require a third shot now...

 

I think employers would look very favorably on people who acted to protect others from a deadly virus, as opposed to those who did the opposite.

Bill

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I dunno. As you can see, I got one without waiting for the wrangling to end. We're wasting our vaccines anyway and I didn't think it was immoral, although I know some people on here disagree. 

What greater ethical value is there than helping to save human lives?

Save one life, you save the world. 

Bill

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mom_to3 said:

Well, one could argue it would send a pretty bad signal to my employer if I were so severely immune compromised as to require a third shot now...

 

My husband got his because he has psoriasis and takes an immunosuppressive medication for it. It’s well controlled with the medication, and no one he works with or for would have any reason to know about it unless he tells them. 

Edited by kokotg
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, KSera said:

At this point, it looks like however broad the criteria are, they are only going to apply to people who had pfizer. With teachers vs college students, I think they would only be equivalent if they are similar ages. That’s an interesting question for an older college student. 

yes, although I think Moderna and J&J are only a few weeks behind. Risk level of severe disease if you get sick might only be equivalent because of age (although I doubt there's much difference between an 18 year old high school senior and her 23 year old fresh out of college English teacher or whatever), but that's not what the category is based on. It seems silly that a high school kid who works part time at a doctor's office would be eligible but not a high schooler who "only" spends all day in a classroom with 30 other kids (when his teacher is eligible not because of age but because of being in precisely the same setting). But I guess this was also true in the spring, and I didn't really think about it much or hear anyone talk about it. You could really make even more of an argument for student eligibility since schooling is compulsory and employment isn't (I think we should be leaning into "schooling is compulsory" a lot more in the pursuit of making schools safer right now). 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kokotg said:

yes, although I think Moderna and J&J are only a few weeks behind. Risk level of severe disease if you get sick might only be equivalent because of age (although I doubt there's much difference between an 18 year old high school senior and her 23 year old fresh out of college English teacher or whatever), 

On the other hand, the teacher probably got her initial vaccination earlier, and by the time the student is at 6 months out the eligibility rules will have expanded.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Danae said:

On the other hand, the teacher probably got her initial vaccination earlier, and by the time the student is at 6 months out the eligibility rules will have expanded.

yes, although that gap isn't that big in a lot of places. My teacher husband got his second dose at the end of March (and had to travel to another state to get it that early, because Georgia opened up eligibility to teachers relatively late). They ended up opening to everyone very soon after, and my then 17 year old got his second dose less than 3 weeks after my husband. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mom_to3 said:

Is anyone concerned that if we get a booster now, it will work again pretty well against infection for about 4 months, and then we are back to square one, needing another booster in the middle of winter (and potentially another horrific wave)? Might it be preferable to wait with boosters until just prior to the holiday season? Transmission to my unvaxxed kids is of course a concern that would make me lean towards an earlier booster...(we are not in one of the worst areas of the country right now in terms of Delta)

Also, does anybody know if the states have actually planned for the many, many thousands of people who will all of a sudden be eligible in terms of vaccine supply and administration? My state is giving out hardly any vaccines right now...

I am eligible for a 3rd dose because I take an immunosuppressant for RA.  I am planning to get the third dose, but I am waiting.

Right now we are mostly staying home and our exposure is quite limited.  We've been pretty tightly locked down throughout the pandemic.  Once dd11 is vaccinated we will (maybe) be opening up a bit.  I plan to get my 3rd shot when I take her in to get her first.

I want to make sure that I have good immunity for the holidays.  My two college kids will be home and we might be seeing other relatives once we are all fully vaxxed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kokotg said:

Are we thinking that the criteria for boosters are going to be so broad that pretty much anyone who wants one will be able to get one? I mean, I can't see any reason why teachers would be eligible but not high school/college students for the same reasons, for example. They're in the same high risk setting for the same number of hours. I don't see any way they'll be able to verify when the categories are so vague. 

I don't know, but a major concern when the FDA met to vote was risk/benefit to that age group. I believe most of them voted no because of that. I certainly wouldn't push my college age D to get a booster. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend whose 11 yr old will be getting a third dose as he is on heavy duty meds for severe, early onset ulcerative colitis. He has infusions every few weeks of an immune modifier, but to be that severe at his age is uncommon, so his doctor is researching the best timing for him to get the third dose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

I don't know, but a major concern when the FDA met to vote was risk/benefit to that age group. I believe most of them voted no because of that. I certainly wouldn't push my college age D to get a booster. 

You know, I know a whole bunch of young people who've had COVID and who've had the vaccine, and I'd certainly prefer them to get the vaccine over COVID from what I've seen. Like, no, COVID wasn't that bad for anyone that age I know, but our babysitter couldn't smell anything for months. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

You know, I know a whole bunch of young people who've had COVID and who've had the vaccine, and I'd certainly prefer them to get the vaccine over COVID from what I've seen. Like, no, COVID wasn't that bad for anyone that age I know, but our babysitter couldn't smell anything for months. 

Oh for sure.  But we're talking about people who have had their initial doses right?  I wasn't super surprised they would want better data for those under 30 in particular to justify a booster in terms of need/safety.  I am not really worried about my 16 or 20 year old fully vaxed kids.  My 20 year old wasn't fully vaccinated until very late June. And both had a strong 36 hour immune response to the vaccine.  

But my husband and I are in our 50's.  And heck yes, I want a booster.  We both have a parent that suddenly developed heart disease in their 50's.  I was really thinking they'd roll out to 40 or 50+ with some leeway for those who want to do the risk analysis (those with kids in school, work or live with vulnerable people, family history, etc).  I hope they correct sooner rather than later.  I am not going to run out and get one though because I am only 4 months post 2nd vaccine.  If I get to 6 months out and they haven't opened it up, I will think about it.  I'd love one in November-ish time frame before the holidays.  

I really dislike how vague they are rolling this out.  I still haven't convinced my 75 year old mom who is on RA drugs to get a booster because her doctor's office hasn't contacted her and there haven't been clear lists published for who is eligible!  Continue to make it a case of the have and have nots.  I guess with the new age recommendation she'll be more proactive.  

Edited by FuzzyCatz
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Oh for sure.  But we're talking about people who have had their initial doses right?  I wasn't super surprised they would want better data for those under 30 in particular to justify a booster in terms of need/safety.  I am not really worried about my 16 or 20 year old fully vaxed kids.  My 20 year old wasn't fully vaccinated until very late June. And both had a strong 36 hour immune response to the vaccine.  

I'm not rushing out to get my sister to get a booster, it's true -- for one thing, she got vaxxed quite late as well. So I do get that. I don't expect her to need one any time soon. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Thanks! I don't think I'm out of the woods yet, because last time, I got the headache a few days in. However, so far, it has felt easier on my body, and I don't have the headache yet, at least. 

So... we'll see. 

I'll keep good thoughts for you and hope no headache materializes.

Please stay well hydrated.

Bill

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...