Let's assume there is a population of 1000 where 90% are fully vaccinated, vaccine efficacy against hospitalization is 85%, and the hospitalization rate if not vaccinated is 10% (the rate isn't important here bc it's about relative terms). Then...
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1417169919783981058
...100x0.1=10 unvaccinated are hospitalized. And 900×0.1×(1-0.85)=13.5 vaccinated are hospitalized, make that 14. Then of all 24 hospitalized, the vaccinated account for 14/24=0.58=58%. Which gets us very close to the 60% reported by the article, in the simplest of all examples.
Why did I choose 90% vaccination rate even though the overall UK rate is lower than that? Because compared to the highly vaccinated older age groups, the young ones produce way fewer hospitalizations whether vaccinated or not, so they don't affect the totals that much.
I'm not suggesting that's how we arrived at the 60% share reported from reality. But there's a large set of plausible parameters we can combine in similar or more complicated examples to arrive again at the 60% share without vaccines being less effective than we currently think.
And as he has flipped the shares of hospitalized vaccinated and unvaccinated (😹), just lower the vaccination rate to 85% and raise the efficacy to 90% in my example, which are as plausible as the previous numbers, and we arrive at a share of 36%.
https://twitter.com/JohnGerard5/status/1417209608297402377?s=19
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
