This data does not control for the fact that the UK vaccinated high-risk people first, but this government report shows that while the delta variant became 91% of cases there were 37 deaths among vaccinated and 34 deaths among unvaccinated.
Matthew Crawford used data from how vaccines are distributed across risk groups in the UK to try to control for this. His analysis suggests that vaccines reduce death by 75%, although extreme assumptions can lower this to 50% or raise it to 90%.
They took a bunch of equally sick people and then determined whether they had COVID and what their vaccination status was.
The vaccine was considered effective to the extent that sick people who tested positive for COVID were less likely to be vaccinated and vice versa.
“This helps to control for biases related to health seeking behaviour, access to testing and case ascertainment,” they wrote.
Ok, but then we aren’t even trying to look at the efficacy rate in the general population. We are looking at efficacy for leading to a negative COVID test among equally sick people.
Error: I said the report cited more than 90% efficacy against death, but that was hospitalizations.
This paper simply takes the other paper’s conclusions about efficacy against cases and multiplies this by the likelihood of vaccinated case winding up in the hospital.
So there is zero data on unvaccinated people who wound up in the hospital!
To reiterate, they took a bunch of equally sick people who sought medical attention.
The vaccine was 80% effective in rendering those sick people a negative COVID case.
Some of those people wound up in the hospital.
The vaccine was effective against hospitalization defined as multiplying the efficacy of making a sick person not a COVID case multiplied by the risk they wound up in the hospital.
This all comes back to the raw data, where it looks like the vaccines are probably somewhere around 75% effective against death, very meaningful but a lot less than advertised.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The people who think unvaccinated people are “variant factories” are asking us to believe this:
Lack of immunity creates selective pressure to escape immunity.
This is incoherent and indefensible.
I do not believe anyone believes this unless they have no training (even undergrad) in science. I do not believe anyone with any training in science who says this actually believes this.
In sum, the variants of concern didn’t evolve until vaccine trials started and every single one popped up in a location where a vaccine trial was being done.
This actually makes some surprising theological sense, in that Christianity embraced images of people due to its perception of the unification of God and man, whereas Islam saw this as idolatrous due to its view of the separation of God and man.
However, Murray has no idea what she’s talking about. Christian women covered their heads through most of history just like Muslim women and this is obvious if you just look at icons of women saints in Orthodox or Roman Catholic Christianity.
Also, the theological underpinnings of man as being made in the image of God pre-date Islam by thousands of years and that of Jesus unifying God and man pre-date it by hundreds of years.
Couldn’t find anything on pubmed but this preprint suggests the delta variant doesn’t have a more severe case trajectory than any cases with non-variants of concern.
So it looks like Pfizer only tested most organs for their vaccine proxy biodistribution up to 48h because it only lasted that long in the liver. But the liver had max concentrations at 8 hours whereas ovaries kept increasing up to the 48h mark.
It was just VAERS data and news reports till the FDA put the warning on the bottle.
Meanwhile, CDC has a whole protocol of what to do if pericarditis or myocarditis develop after the 1st dose: wait till it calms down and give the second dose for peri, have a talk if myo.
And Pfizer seems to have violated their protocol or otherwise have done something iffy with the numbers for the children in their trial: facebook.com/11212376048719…
I can see the argument that these only act from certain templates, but let’s not forget 1) we falsely believed this couldn’t be true & literally called it “the central dogma” for almost a century and 2) it’s commonly believed that some half of our genome was inserted by viruses.
Ok so Crick’s original stating of the dogma in 1957/58 applied the exclusion to protein—>nucleic acid but not to RNA—>DNA, whereas Watson’s 1965 formulation applied it to both, so Watson’s but not Crick’s version had been falsified by reverse transcription.