Prof Jeffrey S Morris Profile picture
Sep 15, 2021 13 tweets 4 min read Read on X
Data presented below show nearly 33% of unvaccinated adult Israeli residents were previously infected.

Why is this important & has this contributed to misinterpretation of Israeli data?

This thread wll explore these questions.
1/n
Israeli MoH releases periodic vaccination reports on its Telegram site. This table breaks down vaccination status by age groups as of September 14, 2021 listing total population and number given 1/2/3 doses plus those unvaccinated but recovered from previous infection
2/n Image
From these data, I constructed this table with % of population unvaccinated, given 1 dose, 2 doses, & 3 doses, & proportion of unvaccinated are previously infected.

Note that >30% of total unvaccinated Israelis were previously infected, & >1/3 for all age groups in 20-59yr
3/n Image
Why does this matter? Because literature is clear they have strong immune protection even if not vaccinated (see post link below).

As a result, VE estimates will be strongly attenuated if previously infected are not removed from the unvaccinated.
4/n

covid-datascience.com/post/overwhelm…
To illustrate this effect, consider a populaton of 1m, 75% vaccinated, 1/3 unvaccinated previously infected, infection rate of 0.01 for unvaccinated no previous infection, VE=65%, and previous infections reduce risk of reinfection by 90%. Here is the effect:
5/n Image
We see failure to remove previously infected attenuates VE from 65% to 50%. Here is the same scenario assuming VE=50%, that is attenuated to 28.6% if previously infected are not removed from unvaccinated.
6/n Image
This is relevant since MoH reported in late July VE reduced to 44% for vax in Feb & 16% for vax in Jan, creating impression that vaccine effectiveness was going to 0% quickly after 6m.

Their report didn’t mention if they removed previously infected.
7/n
gov.il/BlobFolder/rep…
Three rigorous studies were done (Mizrahi et al,Israel et al,Goldberg et al) on waning immunity – all removed previously infected & adjusted for confounders as much as possible. Here is the Goldberg paper that also compared with unvaccinated controls.
8/n
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
These all found 1.6-2.2x reduction in VE from those vaccinated in Jan-Feb vs. Apr-May, but relative to unvaccinated, VE reduced from 75-80% to 50-65%., much higher than the 44%/16% MoH reported

Is it possible MoH report mistakenly left previously infected in unvaccinated?
9/n
Since Israel made vax optional for previously infected and then only gave 1 dose, this especially affects the unvaccinated group. Other places, there could be some subset of “fully vaccinated” who were also previously infected and have extra protection.
10/n
For this reason, all locales should, whereever possible, split out data not just by vaccination status but also previous infection status.

And we should all be mindful of this potential effect when evaluating simple analyses to estimate VE.
11/n
BTW thanks to Nurit Baytch who sent me link to MOH methodology document showing in their analyses they DO remove unvaccinated from the strata before estimating VE: t.me/MOHreport/8321
... hopefully they did that for this waning immunity analysis: gov.il/BlobFolder/rep…

• • •

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

Keep Current with Prof Jeffrey S Morris

Prof Jeffrey S Morris 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 @jsm2334

Feb 28
Here I will briefly discuss this paper you linked talking about negative effectiveness observed in some subgroups for a small subset of studies

I will first summarize their points, and then go through every study they mention.

It is not a reasonable viewpoint that vaccines have negative effectiveness and make covid risks worse based on the many published studies and data
Here is their overall conclusions: that these rare cases where negative VE is observed is likely causedThey discuss some of these ,biases by confounding bias in settings where true VE is very small such as Omicron vs infection long after vaccination
Image
Image
First they mention negative effectiveness estimates are rare even for omicron - with many studies finding only positive effectiveness, and the cases of negative effectiveness typically only in one of numerous subset analyses with small sample size and few events

They point to these factors and suggest the negative point estimates are likely resulting from biasImage
Read 10 tweets
Jan 31
An Epoch Times article discusses a recent paper by FDA researchers assessing safety of Pfizer and Moderna bivalent boosters given to 8,638,661 and 5,240,178 individuals, respectively, comparing incidence rate of 18 different serious adverse events of special interest (including various cardiovascular events) in data bases from Carelon Research, CVS Health, and Optum.

Out of all 18 events, they only identified safety signals for:
1. anaphylaxis for both vaccines 18-64yr in 1 out of the 3 data bases (but not the other 2), and
2. myocarditis/pericarditis for 18-35yr for Pfizer vaccine in 1 out of the 3 data bases (but not the other 2)
They concluded results were consistent with previous studies and supporting the safety profile for these vaccines

However, the Epoch Times article highlights the following numbers, suggesting they are from this paper:
1. anaphylaxis rate was 74.5 cases per 100k person-years following Pfizer vaccination
2. anaphylaxis rate was 109.4 cases per 100k person-years following Moderna vaccination
3. myo/pericarditis rate was 131.4 cases per 100k person-years
These figures to a novice reader might make one think that the rate of anaphylaxis per person is
1 per 1342 (100,000/74.5) after Pfizer,
1 per 914 (100,000/109.4) after Moderna,
and the rate of myo/pericarditis is
1 per 761 (100,000/131.4) after Pfizer,
which would seem alarmingly high, seemingly contradicting the conclusions of the paper. However, this is completely false.

As I will show in this thread, these figures:
1. were not even reported in the paper, but computed for the Epoch Times article from Table 3.
2. were actually mis-computed from Table 3 in the paper
3. based on rate per person-year is not the most useful summary for incidence after vaccination given the time frame for these events varies from 2 days (anaphylaxis) to 28 or 42 days after vaccination, and easily misconstrued/misinterpreted.

Looking at the paper, what they actually found for incidence was:
1. anaphylaxis from d0-d1 after bivalent vaccine booster occurred at rate between 1/4.3m and 1/430k for Pfizer, and between 1/2.6m and 1/260k for Moderna
2. myo/peri-carditis from d0-d21 after bivalent vaccine booster occurred at rate of 1/27k for Pfizer and 1/29k for Moderna
3. For 5-17yr olds, the myo/peri-carditis rate from d0-d21 after bivalent vaccine booster occured at rate between 1/535k and 1/54k for Pfizer, and <1/50k for Moderna
4. For 18-64yr olds, the myo/peri-carditis rates from d0-d21 after bivalent boosters was 1/53k for Pfizer and 1/55k for Moderna

These are in line with previous literature, and not alarming -- the calculation and inclusion of the rates per person-year in the Epoch article appear to be trying to exaggerate the risk

I'll transparently explain where I get these numbers from in this thread...

theepochtimes.com/health/fda-fin…
First, let's consider the anaphylaxis data. Here is the part of Table 3 containing the number of cases and person-years of follow up for two vaccines for the different age groups.

Privacy rules forbid them from publishing any raw counts <11 in the table, so "<11" means some unknown number between 1 and 10.

Based on that I compute the event rate per 100,000 person years.

For Pfizer, we see that combining age groups, the event rate is between 4.3 and 42.7 anaphlaxis events per 100k person-years

This is significantly lower than the 74.5 per 100k person-years that Epoch put in their article -- not sure where they got that from.

However, this is not a very meaningful measure since this event is only defined at d0-d1 after vaccination, meaning a person is only at risk for 2 days for this event.

It would be more meaningful for us to consider the proportion of individuals who experience anaphylaxis in d0-d1 after the vaccine, i.e. at the individual level, not person-years.Image
To compute the incidence per person, we need to consider the number of individuals given each vaccine in each age group, which was given in Table 2 in the paper: Image
Read 12 tweets
Jan 8
1/n
Annals of Internal Medicine just published our epidemiological study of vaccine effectiveness in children and teens during the delta and omicron waves based on large USA pediatric cohorts accounting for nearly 4% of the USA pediatric population.

The study found strong vaccine effectiveness vs. infection, severe disease, and ICU during the delta wave for adolescents and the omicron wave for children and adolescents, with no evidence of increased risk of cardiac outcomes.

Senior authors are Yong Chen, Christopher Forrest, and Jeffrey S Morris, and Lead authors are Qiong Wu and Jiayi (Jesse) Tong.

#PEDSNet #COVID_19 #COVIDVaccine @ChildrensPhila @UPennDBEI @PennMedicine

acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M2…Image
Image
2/n
Study Data
This study was done using electronic medical records data from PEDSnet, a network of 8 USA pediatric health systems across 23 states and the District of Columbia, capturing nearly 4% of all children and adolescents in the USA, including large primary care systems, including the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, and Nemours Children Health.

This study included a total of 77,392 adolescents (45,007 vaccinated) during the Delta wave, a total of 111,539 children (50,398 vaccinated) and 56,080 adolescents (21,180 vaccinated) during the Omicron wave, with extensive follow up of these cohorts providing the longest follow up among studies of pediatric vaccine effectiveness.Image
3/n
Study Cohorts
For the Delta substudy, we identified adolescents vaccinated between July 1, 2021 and November 30, 2021, and found a matched cohort of unvaccinated individuals, choosing for each an index date such that the distribution of index dates in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals matched (preventing calendar time confounding), and requiring health encounters in the system to avoid healthcare seeking behavior confounding.

For the Omicron substudies, we identified children (age 5 to 11) and adolescents (age 12 to 20) vaccinated between January 1, 2022 and November 30, 2022, again choosing an unvaccinated control cohort with index dates chosen such that vaccinated and unvaccinated distributions matched.

For each individual, we had access to extensive demographic and medical information including vaccination status, COVID-19 outcomes, and various potential confounders that we could take into account.
Read 17 tweets
Jul 21, 2023
@TracyBethHoeg, Duresetti, and @VPrasadMDMPH published a commentary in @NEJM yesterday pointing out unmeasured confounding due to the healthy vaccinee effect (HVE) in a December 2021 @NEJM paper published by a group led by Clalit researcher @ArbelRonen.

They pointed out a 94.8%… https://t.co/KAUrLUtaL4twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Image
The healthy vaccinee effect, or healthy user effect, is a well-known phenomenon that people who follow public health recommendations tend to be healthier in general, and this can manifest in vaccine effectiveness studies as unmeasured confounders beyond those included in the… https://t.co/EJ9J23oqRitwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Image
This response was published immediately following Hoeg, et al.’s correspondence, and the results of their model is given below.

They found the hazard ratio of non-COVID deaths from boosted to non-boosted after adjusting for the same covariates as the original publication was… https://t.co/6vLhOUHZtttwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Image
Read 10 tweets
Jul 20, 2023
I have seen many people forwarding this graphic around, claiming that the UK ONS data show that the death rate for vaccinated individuals was much higher than unvaccinated, suggesting vaccines were dangerous and killing people.

This plot is inaccurate and misleading.

In this 🧵, I will demonstrate that the UK ONS data show consistently lower death rates for the ever vaccinated than the unvaccinated throughout the pandemic, for COVID-19 deaths, non-COVID-19 deaths, as well as all cause deaths.

The only way people can spin these data to suggest vaccinated have higher death rates is if they magnify the very small vaccine subgroups and minimize the majority of the vaccinated, as I will show.Image
@Tony48781320 @DuttyMonkey_ Here is the data for 40-49
@SageblogOrg @lucasmelange @goddeketal Btw if you read the report that page came from the answer is clear — did you read the report or just forward this table that someone else posted.
Read 4 tweets
May 28, 2023
@1onetenthdegree @czssschhrsxcf @TheChiefNerd @Hammersmith84 @_aussie17 The paper is a basic ecological analysis, simply plotting deaths over time, estimating excess deaths based on some baseline pre-pandemic death rate assumptions, and then trying to read into the variability of these data in various age groups over time, in particular the fact that… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
@1onetenthdegree @czssschhrsxcf @TheChiefNerd @Hammersmith84 @_aussie17 They don't test any hypotheses or perform any real inference in this paper, but just plot descriptive summaries and try to interpret what they see and speculate about potential causes.
@1onetenthdegree @czssschhrsxcf @TheChiefNerd @Hammersmith84 @_aussie17 Two of their main points are that:
1. The excess deaths primarily occur in 2021-2022, not 2020.
2. Vaccinations started in 2021.
3. The excess death rate of 100k in 2021-2022 is unprecedented.

I could say a lot about their analysis and their focus, but will just focus on one key… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Read 9 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(