Re #NA1400 & Ireland clip where 93% are vaxed & half of the 600 hospitalized COVID patients are vaxed, the "evidence is clear".
If vax had no effect & all else was equal, you'd expect 93% of COVID hospitalizations to be of vaxed people (same % as the population). But hospitalizations are 50% vaxed people. Meaning that while half of 600 (300) hospitalizations represent the 7% unvaxed, an expected 3700 more vaxed COVID hospitalizations are missing.
Not necessarily, since susceptibility is not uniform.
the Irish as a mixed-race population have a great deal of genetic diversity including a lot of Asiatic genes
as I said, all else being equal.
my point being that this is the general relevant math you must do, that 50% hospitalized when most are vax are good results for vaccinations. if some group is 7% of the population but half of all hospitalizations for some disease, you'd say they are much more susceptible to it.
Most people (vax and unvax) who get exposed are not very susceptible and do not end up at the hospital. And I'm only focused on Ireland cause that's what NA talked about, asking whether 50% hospitalized of each showed the vax wasn't working.
But the math is good when you're just doing a comparison between vax and unvax hospitalizations in any reasonably sized specific area (population 5m). COVID skeptics make these arguments all the time and you don't complain.
obviously the vax isn't working because even at herd immunity numbers the virus is still raging wild and free, if we even believe that anymore
but the point is that people who end up in a hospital are a small group, and so it's not entirely surprising that half of them are unvaxed, but it is that half of them are vaxed, since that means the vax doesn't work so good
the vax is not 100% effective. what's necessary for herd immunity changes based on vax effectiveness, starting conditions and what other actions people are taking.
the math I did is based on the NA clip & I did it to refute the confusion Adam expressed, claiming 50% of the hospitalized being vaxed means they don't work at all.
I don't agree that the numbers are too small to tell us anything, but I agree that I'd like to see more. of course IRL data is more suspect.
distrust due to financial incentives is capitalism.
not half. a vax 90% effective at reducing hospitalization in a 90% vaxed population where 100k would normally be hospitalized would have 10k unvax, 9k vax. And save 81k from hospitalization.
lastly, you're saying the data will be shit till the people who don't trust the data cause they think there's a grand conspiracy going on, are going to let anyone (much less the government) give them a genetic assay? c'mon.
the scientific method is our best way of ascertaining what's true. do that. work to avoid that which makes that process fail us.
but as a society, just like we do as individuals, take necessary but careful action based on imperfect information. real life isn't lab conditions, and it also doesn't wait. conservatives have an advantage here cause they generally don't like govt action and can always say wait till we know more. that can have terrible repercussions too.
maybe. the case still hasn't been made that this is an actual pandemic and not just a nasty flu that kills some people with one of the 13 loci.
in the meantime, a working vaccine means that people stop getting the disease.
this is a therapy that seems to work badly and kill people at the same time.
a place for liberal values on the #fediverse