Scrutable

lpm wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 1:11 pm You are the master at going off in irrelevant tangents and wasting everyone's time.

sheldrake wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:20 pm

lpm wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 1:11 pm You are the master at going off in irrelevant tangents and wasting everyone's time.

The fact that Israel's largest wave of infections came after mass vaccination is irrelevant when we're discussing how much protection against transmission vaccines really give?

Herainestold wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 9:48 pm Vaccinations protect reasonably well against infection for about three months, but not long thereafter. Protection against severe outcomes lasts about six months.

Available evidence shows that fully vaccinated individuals and those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 each have a low risk of subsequent infection for at least 6 months.

The efficacy of the vaccine against severe disease for the 60+ age group also decreases; from 91% to 86% between those vaccinated four months to those vaccinated six months before the study. The corresponding efficacies for the 40-59 age group are 98% and 94%. Thus, the vaccine seems to be highly effective even after six months compared to the unvaccinated population, but its effectiveness is significantly lower than it was closer to the vaccination date.

bob sterman wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:02 pm

Herainestold wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 9:48 pm Vaccinations protect reasonably well against infection for about three months, but not long thereafter. Protection against severe outcomes lasts about six months.

You don't appear to have any basis for those claims.

Some data...

Available evidence shows that fully vaccinated individuals and those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 each have a low risk of subsequent infection for at least 6 months.

sheldrake wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:45 pm That isn't data, it's a quote from a government body that contains no numbers.

A systematic review and meta-analysis including data from three vaccine efficacy trials and four observational studies from the US, Israel, and the United Kingdom, found no significant difference in the overall level of protection provided by infection as compared with protection provided by vaccination; this included studies from both prior to and during the period in which Delta was the predominant variant [79]. In this review, the randomized controlled trials appeared to show higher protection from mRNA vaccines whereas the observational studies appeared to show protection to be higher following infection.

CONCLUSIONS While vaccinations are highly effective at protecting against infection and severe COVID-19 disease, our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by full vaccination of COVID-naïve populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis. COVID-recovered individuals represent a distinctly different benefit-risk calculus. Therefore, vaccination of COVID-recovered individuals should be subject to clinical equipoise and individual preference.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 9:55 am The CDC press release is not scholarship and quotes from it do not constitute data.

Here is an example of how it distorts its own sources

From the CDC

A systematic review and meta-analysis including data from three vaccine efficacy trials and four observational studies from the US, Israel, and the United Kingdom, found no significant difference in the overall level of protection provided by infection as compared with protection provided by vaccination; this included studies from both prior to and during the period in which Delta was the predominant variant [79]. In this review, the randomized controlled trials appeared to show higher protection from mRNA vaccines whereas the observational studies appeared to show protection to be higher following infection.

[79] References this pre-print
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21263461v1

Which has the following, starkly different, conclusion to that ascribed by the CDC

CONCLUSIONS While vaccinations are highly effective at protecting against infection and severe COVID-19 disease, our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by full vaccination of COVID-naïve populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis. COVID-recovered individuals represent a distinctly different benefit-risk calculus. Therefore, vaccination of COVID-recovered individuals should be subject to clinical equipoise and individual preference.

Do you see that? the CDC cited this paper as evidence that vaccination conferred superior protection than natural immunity. The paper said 'natural immunity is at least as good, possibly superior. There's some small incremental benefit to vaccinating the naturally immune so we shouldn't be trying to make naturally immune people get vaccinated'.

This is what corporate capture of a govt. body looks like.

Woodchopper wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 12:52 pm

sheldrake wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 9:55 am The CDC press release is not scholarship and quotes from it do not constitute data.

Here is an example of how it distorts its own sources

From the CDC

A systematic review and meta-analysis including data from three vaccine efficacy trials and four observational studies from the US, Israel, and the United Kingdom, found no significant difference in the overall level of protection provided by infection as compared with protection provided by vaccination; this included studies from both prior to and during the period in which Delta was the predominant variant [79]. In this review, the randomized controlled trials appeared to show higher protection from mRNA vaccines whereas the observational studies appeared to show protection to be higher following infection.

[79] References this pre-print
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21263461v1

Which has the following, starkly different, conclusion to that ascribed by the CDC

CONCLUSIONS While vaccinations are highly effective at protecting against infection and severe COVID-19 disease, our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by full vaccination of COVID-naïve populations. There is a modest and incremental relative benefit to vaccination in COVID-recovered individuals; however, the net benefit is marginal on an absolute basis. COVID-recovered individuals represent a distinctly different benefit-risk calculus. Therefore, vaccination of COVID-recovered individuals should be subject to clinical equipoise and individual preference.

Do you see that? the CDC cited this paper as evidence that vaccination conferred superior protection than natural immunity. The paper said 'natural immunity is at least as good, possibly superior. There's some small incremental benefit to vaccinating the naturally immune so we shouldn't be trying to make naturally immune people get vaccinated'.

This is what corporate capture of a govt. body looks like.

eh? The two quotes don't look different to me. The CDC states that there is "no significant difference" whereas the article states that natural immunity is "at least, equivalent" to vaccination, which provides a "modest and incremental benefit".

In this review, the randomized controlled trials appeared to show higher protection from mRNA vaccines

All of the included studies found at least statistical equivalence between the protection of full vaccination and natural immunity; and, three studies found superiority of natural immunity.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 9:55 am The CDC press release is not scholarship and quotes from it do not constitute data.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:55 pm
The CDC is citing this study in support of mass vaccination regardless of prior Covid status.

CDC wrote: Available evidence shows that fully vaccinated individuals and those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 each have a low risk of subsequent infection for at least 6 months.

CDC wrote:The immunity provided by vaccine and prior infection are both high but not complete (i.e., not 100%).

sheldrake wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:55 pmCDC
You all must be vaccinated because this study says in some circumstances vaccines are better

Multiple studies in different settings have consistently shown that infection with SARS-CoV-2 and vaccination each result in a low risk of subsequent infection with antigenically similar variants for at least 6 months.

CDC wrote:Numerous immunologic studies and a growing number of epidemiologic studies have shown that vaccinating previously infected individuals significantly enhances their immune response and effectively reduces the risk of subsequent infection, including in the setting of increased circulation of more infectious variants.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:32 pm It may sound like an unremarkable statement but it is not really supported by the paper they cite in support of it. The improvements to resistance in the already infected are clearly called out as tiny incremental improvements of questionable value. They are clearly trying to twist 'this is questionable' into 'this is a good idea'.

Vaccine-induced Immune Responses after Previous Infection
Although there appears to be varying evidence regarding the relative protection that occurs after surviving COVID-19 as compared with completing vaccination, there is substantial immunologic and increasing epidemiologic evidence that vaccination following infection further increases protection against subsequent illness among those who have been previously infected.

Immunologic Data on Vaccination Following Infection
There is clear evidence that neutralizing antibody and memory B cell response elicited by a single dose of mRNA vaccine following previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 results in an increased antibody titer that is approximately equivalent to a two-dose vaccine regimen in individuals who were not previously infected (Table 3) [22, 23, 82-89]. In one study of healthcare workers vaccinated 7–11 months after infection with SARS-CoV-2, antibody titers measured 6 days following their first vaccination dose were twice as high as the antibody titers measured the month after their initial infection, and were able to neutralize wild-type, Alpha, and Beta variants, irrespective of vaccine type, number of doses, or pre-vaccination antibody titers [90].

Risk of Reinfection in Unvaccinated vs. Vaccinated Individuals with a History of Infection
In studies directly comparing risk of reinfection among previously infected individuals who were never vaccinated versus individuals who were vaccinated after infection, most, but not all, studies show a benefit of vaccination. One retrospective cohort study described risk of reinfection from December 2020–May 2021 among 2,579 US-based healthcare users previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, about 47% of whom were vaccinated over the course of the study. Investigators did not detect any cases of reinfection, regardless of vaccination status during 5 months of observation and so could not detect a benefit of vaccination [91]. In contrast, a case-control study conducted among 738 residents of Kentucky with reported infection during March–December 2020 found that previously infected persons who were unvaccinated had 2.3 times greater odds of reinfection during May–June 2021 than previously infected but vaccinated individuals [92]. Both studies occurred before Delta became the dominant variant in the United States.

More recent observational cohort studies including over 700,000 health system users in Israel and over 11,000 healthcare workers in India reported that history of prior infection provided greater protection from subsequent infection than vaccination alone, but overall risk of infection was lowest among those that were vaccinated following infection during periods of Delta predominance [93, 94]. In the systematic review described above, a pooled analysis across seven studies showed a modest but significant increase in protection from infection when previously infected individuals were vaccinated [79].

sheldrake wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:30 pm Why are you just listing papers without reading them? You've already seen you can't take it on trust that they actually say what the CDC says they say. Now that's a gish gallop.

You appear to be under the mistaken impression that the CDC statement was based upon findings from one paper.

If you actually want to understand the evidence base you'll need to read that lot.

lpm wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:01 pm Things look like tiny incremental improvements of questionable value when it's an improvement from, say, 86% to 92% to 94%.

But when the same numbers are flipped to risk falling from 14% to 8% to 6% it looks like a very useful improvement.

Don't lose sight of what boosters will achieve with only an incremental improvement.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:30 pm Why are you just listing papers without reading them? You've already seen you can't take it on trust that they actually say what the CDC says they say. Now that's a gish gallop.

jdc wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 4:18 pm

lpm wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:01 pm Things look like tiny incremental improvements of questionable value when it's an improvement from, say, 86% to 92% to 94%.

But when the same numbers are flipped to risk falling from 14% to 8% to 6% it looks like a very useful improvement.

Don't lose sight of what boosters will achieve with only an incremental improvement.

The CDC could legitimately have said that vaccination in the COVID-recovered roughly halves the risk of reinfection based on that review, which sounds very different to sheldrake's take.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:53 pm

If you actually want to understand the evidence base you'll need to read that lot.

Have you?

Woodchopper wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:16 pm

sheldrake wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:53 pm

If you actually want to understand the evidence base you'll need to read that lot.

Have you?

I don’t need to. I’m not the one who is making serious allegations of corruption against doctors and scientists who are vastly more competent than I am.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:19 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:16 pm

sheldrake wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:53 pm


Have you?

I don’t need to. I’m not the one who is making serious allegations of corruption against doctors and scientists who are vastly more competent than I am.

Well, I read the source I used and it really does differ from what the CDC claimed in exactly the way I said. I suggest you read your sources.
eta you just proudly declared your disinterest in even trying to understand things you paste big lists of to support your argument. lol

Woodchopper wrote: Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:28 pm

I’m trying to show you what you’d need to do if you wanted your argument to be taken seriously.