No in this case there is an abuse of language which has led to the poisoning of the conversation somewhat.
There, the reason being the broad change in the correct definition of the word "vaccine". In former years this would be a preventative treatment that was probably 90%+ effective for multiple years for most people for almost all symptoms and almost all ability for infection to spread. The key being stopping the spread as this is why vaccines are adopted in the first place historically.
For some reason this particular treatment is given this grandiose title despite unfortunately not really working at reducing spread, and only demonstrably reduces severe symptoms for those who are clinically at risk. It's a preventative treatment which works very well and should be applauded but the problem is people are now calling it what it's not which causes problems.
At the time, the "base rate" of vaccination was already up around 90%, so the 60% rate in hospitalised patients actually demonstrated significant protection.
Yes again in the art risk groups this reduced significant symptoms hence why they're underrepresented in global hospitalisation numbers. As I keep saying it's a fantastic preventative treatment.
Unfortunately many people are still catching it repeatedly, displaying symptoms repeatedly and the fact that despite 90%+ of people are immunised. With vaccination levels like this for various other diseases transmission would be pretty much stopped and symptoms would be much lower.
Anyway, not looking to derail, just want to point out there is a significant change in the definition of words being used which can causes conversations to become toxic, and apologies if you think I'm being abrupt.
This person was questioning its efffectiveness simply because more people in hospital were vaccinated than weren't. Without considering the base rate. A sufficiently high base rate would lead to this situation even if the vaccine was 99.9% effective.
> only small (and sometimes non-significant) reductions in the risk of hospitalisation were seen in 10–19-year-olds, with increasingly large reductions seen with age in 20–69-year-olds
> A sufficiently high base rate would lead to this situation even if the vaccine was 99.9% effective.
In principle for these factors alone statistically yes, in reality we know this isn't the case. Calling it a vaccine is calling it broken. Calling it a preventative treatment to improve your outcome is more accurate.
The studies showing reduced admissions are either grasping at statistical straws or a reglorofied statement of "This is a novel contagion in a herd without immunity at which some unknown percentage may be clinically at risk from genetic or environmental factors."
The strongest environmental factors we now _know_ (and had clear statistical evidence for as of July2020!) was vitaminD and a few other well defined risk factors.
Hospitalisation in the UK due to exclusively COVID factors reduced dramatically as the pandemic went on due to less strong concern once almost every a&e had seen the full disease cycle from admission to treatments to outcome. Not to mention most COVID cases at hospital in the UK were either contracted there in the younger age groups or they tested positive but this wasn't the concern at the time of admission.
One of the major concerns in May2020 was that "up to 30% of the working population may be off it at one time if the virus spreads according to China's numbers and the economic cost of that is too high..." In hindsight this statement didn't compare to the damage of being frozen by indecision combined with no global trade for 2 years, so...
As for guessing how many would end up in hospital report 9 models said the peak would be over 2million needing a&e at the same time, despite the model not combining medical risk with any mortality factors, this was simply 10% or so of total cases if 20M or so we're ill at the same time.
Again, as a preventative treatment for clinically at risk people (who we did a great job of identifying based on medical history in 2020) we should have never had a 2nd global lockdown, unfortunately the particular group all vote a certain way so...
> Conclusions Among adults with sub-optimal baseline vitamin D status, vitamin D replacement at a dose of 800 or 3200 IU/day did not influence protective efficacy or immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
This suggests that having the vaccine is still worth it even if you have normal vit D levels.
So far I have yet to find any studies which show the opposite, but I'd be keen to read anything you can link.
> The studies showing reduced admissions are either grasping at statistical straws or a reglorofied statement of "This is a novel contagion in a herd without immunity at which some unknown percentage may be clinically at risk from genetic or environmental factors."
So... the vaccine reduces hospital admissions for young adults because some unknown percentage of them are "at risk" due to (unknown?) factors?
This argument reminds me of Greek astronomers inventing epicycles to fit the model to the data!
Are you referring to Vitamin D supplementation? Would be interesting to see a similar study which factors this out.
There, the reason being the broad change in the correct definition of the word "vaccine". In former years this would be a preventative treatment that was probably 90%+ effective for multiple years for most people for almost all symptoms and almost all ability for infection to spread. The key being stopping the spread as this is why vaccines are adopted in the first place historically.
For some reason this particular treatment is given this grandiose title despite unfortunately not really working at reducing spread, and only demonstrably reduces severe symptoms for those who are clinically at risk. It's a preventative treatment which works very well and should be applauded but the problem is people are now calling it what it's not which causes problems.