1. So the VE of 95% is in terms of hospitalizations only which is the only outcome he considers. Probably in terms of hospitalized or not, boosters might not move the needle much *if* boosters waned at a similar rate.
2. But not everyone thinks of the 3rd shot as a booster but more as the final shot in a 3-dose regimen. If that’s right, there wouldn’t be the same waning after 3 that we see after 2.
3. If the 3rd shot increased durability, then it reduces hospitalizations over whatever the time-frame to a actual booster (shot #4) would be. That adds up.
Faust also assumes myocarditis rates for 3rd shot = rates for 2nd shots which likely isn't true.
4. But Faust’s problems are even worse. First, anyone who thinks in terms of hospitalizations has to consider course of illness for the hospitalized. Vaxx-related myocarditis has been more mild & of a shorter course than Covid related myocarditis. sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccine-myocar…
5. Plus there are other things aside from myocarditis that put people with Covid in the hospital.
Second, the difference between 2.1% & 2.2% %-wise is insignificant but in terms of absolute numbers, even just for the relevant age & gender, over a large population, .1% adds up.
Thanks for alerting me to the Faust article.
Sorry if this is TMI!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It’s déjà vu all over again as @TracyBethHoeg does the same dumpster dive for Ontario’s “Adverse Events Following Immunization” (AEFI) reporting system that she did for VAERS. Naturally, there are problems. 🧵
As a brief reminder, Hoeg used the raw data of VAERS, despite its numerous disclaimers against doing so, allegedly to extract cases of myocarditis case investigators might have missed. It doesn’t go well. sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-of…
Turning her sights on Ontario, Hoeg doubles down on the mistake; this time not even doing the slightest investigation into Ontario’s AEFI reports (and by “slightest investigation” I mean reading the report) but instead using its raw, unadjudicated data to establish case rates.
If you’re like me, you raise a skeptical eye when @apsmunro is happy. So I took a look at this study and I’m not embarrassed to say: this myth is far from busted. 🧵
The study compares symptoms recorded by an app from periods of Alpha dominance to the period of Delta’s dominance. It purports to show Delta is no worse than Alpha when it comes to kids: either in terms disease burden (number of symptoms) or duration. medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Describing the symptoms tracked, the authors tell us they “do not include some common paediatric co-morbidities (e.g., neurological or neuro-disability disorders).”
Opening by calling quarantine “age old” as if, like leeching, it was largely quackery, @MonicaGandhi takes readers on a path of omissions & oversights before arriving, as if clandestinely, at a conclusion so sane, one suspects she is embarrassed by it.🧵 washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/1…
Despite its age, much like leeching, quarantine has a modern-day place. Gandhi concedes as much in a paragraph mixed with a variety of platitudes about costs and benefits.
Though Gandhi is correct that “in many cases quarantines are probably doing more harm than good”, “probably” carries a lot of weight given that cases where quarantine would do more harm than good are indistinguishable from those where quarantine wouldn’t.
Unhappy with the CDC’s paltry number of myocarditis cases attributable to mRNA vaccines, @TracyBethHoeg et al set out on the vast sea of VAERS in hopes of catching more fish by using "broader search and inclusion criteria" aka a bigger, but definitely not better, net. 🧵
Admirable if only for the nakedness of its ambition, the authors don’t hide that their aim is to “update” the CDC’s estimate,
This study by @TracyBethHoeg, @KrugAlli et al. reinvents the need for the adage "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" as a response to the authors’ novel approach “If you don’t have symptoms, you don’t have cases."🧵 bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjspor…
The study is allegedly about player-to-player transmission being contained by the protocols for youth ice hockey the authors develop. Alarm bells ring almost immediately when the authors introduce us to the study’s crew: a “volunteer epidemiologist”,