Share this page!

Health Nerd Profile picture
Twitter logo
16 Apr, 5 tweets, 1 min read
Interesting point - 0.008% is, all things being equal, a LOWER rate of infections in vaccinated people than I'd expect
In the US, the exact incidence of COVID-19 infections per week is hard to estimate, but it's probably been about 10% of the whole country infected since January (roughly), for a weekly incidence of ~0.5%
The vaccines used in the US are 80-95% effective, and about 100 million people have been vaccinated in that time period
Given the incidence of COVID-19 in that time, even assuming the highest level of protection of 95%, you'd still expect to see 0.05% of vaccinated people getting COVID-19 each week (again, all things being equal)
This relies on many assumptions, most of which are clearly wrong (for one thing, vaccine inequity is rife, they are often given to people in areas with fewer infections first) but it still gives you an idea of how well the vaccines are holding up so far

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Health Nerd

Health Nerd Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GidMK

Health Nerd Profile picture
11 Apr
Fascinating study demonstrating the issues with selection bias in seroprevalence estimates

Using a selected sample of participants, the estimated prevalence of past COVID-19 infection doubled (!) nature.com/articles/s4146…
The study is really interesting. They used an existing representative sample of people aged >30 to estimate the population prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2
They then added a second group. These were people who had not previously signed up to the existing cohort, but were eligible
Read 9 tweets
Health Nerd Profile picture
11 Apr
An update on this whole bizarre experience - the journal has now published a "typeset" version of the paper, which has deleted the lengthy personal attack

There are quite a number of issues remaining, but this at least is good
The author has now included a slightly odd statement in the appendices. It's worth remembering that the original appendix contained a number of factually inaccurate statements about myself and co-authors
I would also suggest that hurting people's feelings is a bizarrely patronizing thing to say. Defamation of PhD students in published scientific work is about more than "feelings"
Read 7 tweets
Health Nerd Profile picture
11 Apr
It is truly bizarre that people who have been arguing for "herd immunity" for the last 12 months don't understand it at all

This is literally what you'd expect due to herd effects
A great example is HPV vaccination. After enough women were vaccinated, HPV rates declined even in unvaccinated men at a pretty impressive rate ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
It's also worth remembering that Israel has had a massive lockdown in this period, which is almost certainly also driving some of the reduction across age groups
Read 5 tweets
Health Nerd Profile picture
7 Apr
Bit of a misleading headline there. As someone who suffers from chronic pain, I find this topic really interesting. The guideline change is based on the fact that RCTs have failed to find a long-term benefit for painkillers for this type of chronic pain
Or, if there are benefits, they are modest compared to the risks of treatment (especially long-term)
I also don't think these guidelines (at least from my reading) say anything about emergency relief for flare-ups, just for long-term management of chronic pain
Read 4 tweets
Health Nerd Profile picture
6 Apr
One of the weird things about the pandemic is watching people talk about uncertainty but refuse to admit that it usually runs in both directions
"All of the COVID-19 cases might be false positives!"

Well, unlikely, but perhaps. It was just as reasonable to say that NONE of the cases were false positives, or that there were many more cases than we could observe
"There are fewer COVID-19 deaths than we've recorded"

Again, possible. Unlikely, but possible. But people who say this rarely acknowledge that it is just as - if not more - likely that there have been MORE deaths than recorded
Read 5 tweets
Health Nerd Profile picture
28 Mar
Recently, Professor John Ioannidis, most famous for his meta-science and more recently COVID-19 work, published this article in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation

It included, among other things, a lengthy personal attack on me

Some thoughts 1/n
2/n The article itself is here, and honestly it’s a bit of an odd piece. If I were to commission a review on the small number of SR/MAs on the COVID-19 IFR, I’d probably want it to be written by someone who hadn’t authored one of the 6 onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ec…
3/n Moreover, I personally find the entire focus of the piece strange. I do not think it is reasonably possible to accurately estimate the GLOBAL IFR (infection fatality rate/ratio) of COVID-19
Read 37 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @GidMK has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @GidMK!

Read all threads by @GidMK