I think they overestimate the number of vaxxed people that are health conscious. The people I know that got the jabs are notoriously health unconscious. They run to the doctor every now and then, but do not look up anything themselves. They just trust the medical establishment to care for them. IMO that is totally health unconscious.
I agree. Most of the vaccinated people I know who got vaccinated because they are terrified of COVID-19 are still being super careful. I do know a fair number of people who got vaccinated because they figured why not (and were vaccinated early)
The Unvaccinated people I know have either already recovered or just accept the risks and are living their lives as normal. They are the ones who look at the CDC guidance and say "I was already doing those things and I'm NOT vaccinated."
There is a subset that is not trivial that aren't vaccinated because they don't trust the government AND are worried about COVID-19 and are being as careful as they can, but I think that's largely in minority communities.
Yeah I saw that yesterday - I commented that I would be SHOCKED if there wasn't a non-trivial number of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic serum positives in their "Unvaccinated" group. Basically they are relying on the 100% national healthcare patient coverage and the fact that they told people to get tested if they felt sick to cull any prior cases out of of the unvaccinated group.
I actually need to do the math on this, but I believe we could model a percent prior infected required for an apparent -10-20% VE rate. I do think we are still getting a good signal on the degradation of the vaccines over time. BTW they fixed their tables and there is a very worrisome signal in there in terms of health status as of baseline (14 days after Dose 2 if I understand correctly).
Yes, I just looked at it more carefully and since it's retrospective they can't know whether or not any people in the study had been previously infected. I guess the question would be whether there is a bias in prior infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Most thinking people would probably be less likely to get the shot if they had already had the disease, but who knows whether it holds true here. I'm sure there must be some bias in that direction.
One thing they might be able to do (not sure if the data is public) is compare seroprevalence data to their NHS infection stats to get an idea of how consistent the two datasets are. Case stats could be wrong in both directions.
It would be so easy for them to demonstrate many of these hunches they have but they don't.
Many of these hypotheses sound plausible until the data shows otherwise. My fear is that the Governments and people have created a virtuous (vicious) cycle where they keep just enough data from the public where we can rule out nothing, but have to entertain everything.
They are literally sitting on who is recovered, what portion of them vaccinated, what portion of those got infected and how quickly, and what portion of them have severe disease but they don't ever tell you. Because the answer is not what they want the public to see. Until it's too late.
They could literally adjust the rates for prior infections. But they wouldn't because they know that it will look worse.
I think they overestimate the number of vaxxed people that are health conscious. The people I know that got the jabs are notoriously health unconscious. They run to the doctor every now and then, but do not look up anything themselves. They just trust the medical establishment to care for them. IMO that is totally health unconscious.
I agree. Most of the vaccinated people I know who got vaccinated because they are terrified of COVID-19 are still being super careful. I do know a fair number of people who got vaccinated because they figured why not (and were vaccinated early)
The Unvaccinated people I know have either already recovered or just accept the risks and are living their lives as normal. They are the ones who look at the CDC guidance and say "I was already doing those things and I'm NOT vaccinated."
There is a subset that is not trivial that aren't vaccinated because they don't trust the government AND are worried about COVID-19 and are being as careful as they can, but I think that's largely in minority communities.
Yes, but there is also this:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/swedish-study-shows-covid-vaccines
Yeah I saw that yesterday - I commented that I would be SHOCKED if there wasn't a non-trivial number of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic serum positives in their "Unvaccinated" group. Basically they are relying on the 100% national healthcare patient coverage and the fact that they told people to get tested if they felt sick to cull any prior cases out of of the unvaccinated group.
I actually need to do the math on this, but I believe we could model a percent prior infected required for an apparent -10-20% VE rate. I do think we are still getting a good signal on the degradation of the vaccines over time. BTW they fixed their tables and there is a very worrisome signal in there in terms of health status as of baseline (14 days after Dose 2 if I understand correctly).
Yes, I just looked at it more carefully and since it's retrospective they can't know whether or not any people in the study had been previously infected. I guess the question would be whether there is a bias in prior infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Most thinking people would probably be less likely to get the shot if they had already had the disease, but who knows whether it holds true here. I'm sure there must be some bias in that direction.
One thing they might be able to do (not sure if the data is public) is compare seroprevalence data to their NHS infection stats to get an idea of how consistent the two datasets are. Case stats could be wrong in both directions.
Now they care about confounding factors, but could mask-wearers overestimate safety and take more risk? Noooooo.
It would be so easy for them to demonstrate many of these hunches they have but they don't.
Many of these hypotheses sound plausible until the data shows otherwise. My fear is that the Governments and people have created a virtuous (vicious) cycle where they keep just enough data from the public where we can rule out nothing, but have to entertain everything.
They are literally sitting on who is recovered, what portion of them vaccinated, what portion of those got infected and how quickly, and what portion of them have severe disease but they don't ever tell you. Because the answer is not what they want the public to see. Until it's too late.
They could literally adjust the rates for prior infections. But they wouldn't because they know that it will look worse.