Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

While your point is well-taken, there's a flaw in your thesis. You are applying the vax rate to the number of cases when, in theory, you would subtract that number from the cases. Either way, I'm certain the particular statistical approach is flawed. You're definitely correct, though, that the vax has had a substantial impact by reducing cases.

 

If there should be 56% less, you would subtract that number from the original/total (65k - 38k). Again, that would also be a flawed approach.

 

Sorry, I quoted you when I meant to quote Potzer.

 

On top of other flaws here, I think assuming linearity is flawed for probably lots of reasons. 2 of the top of my head: 1. as the vaccine rate goes up, behavior changes; 2. the unvaccinated freeloaders benefit from the vaccinated.

 

Yea came back after lunch, makes sense. deleted post.

 

Subtract a percentage?

Personally, I liked the way he did it, even if imperfect.

He simply compared the number of cases for 2 different but corresponding year to year dates, showed one as a percentage of the other, and compared it to the vax rate--and got a match.

Nice statistical gamesmanship--clear, crisp, succinct, and effective.

jmho/fwiw.

 

Of course you did...right after I go to bat for it... ...so NM my post...

I kid... I thought it was fine, fwiw (other than the 'utterly predicable' part--I'd file it under something more akin to 'not particularly shocking', or maybe 'convenient/coincidence'...).

 

You might consider it more carefully. The numeric comparisons are incongruent because they used the percentage of vaxed people to represent the current reduced case number, not accounting for it by subtracting that %. Either way, this kind of simple ratio fails any test of statistical validity. Perhaps you're a visual learner like me. Maybe this hypothetical helps.

year.....population.....%vax.....%population unvaxed.....cases
2020.....100................0............100..................................38 (38%)
2021.....100................56...........44...................................17 (38% of the unvaxxed population)

While statistically invalid, this approach is congruent, because it correctly accounts for the infection % of the population. We needed to subtract the 56% of vaxxed people. Nonetheless, there are all sorts of flaws with this model, despite the enhanced congruency.

 

Uh huh. sounds complicated.

I liked his better. Simple math for simple folk....

(especially on a message board).

 

Several states are seeing a rise in pediatric COVID cases leading to an increase in pediatric hospitalizations. The article also says that up to 30% of kids who get COVID have at least one symptom that can be considered a long haul case. And that the CDC lists 490 deaths of kids under 18 from COVID.

 

Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson (R - probably about to get run out of the party though) has initiated Community COVID Conversation Tour that he is personally leading in an attempt convince the people of his state to get vaccinated. We could use a lot more of this out of governors in states like Missouri, Florida, Texas and others. Probably never going to happen though.

Governor’s Launches Statewide Community COVID Conversations Tour : Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson

 

Good breakdown of the issues of vaccinating young kids(especially boys). This article dispels many of the scare tactics that some on here use.

The CDC Owes Parents Better Messaging on the Vaccine for Kids

"A slide presented during the meeting showed that 0.3 percent of 12- to 25-year-olds (which of course includes 12- to 17-year-olds) have landed in the emergency room following vaccination (0.1 percent after the first dose, and 0.2 percent after the second dose). And 0.3 percent of 1 million, the total number of vaccinations in Walensky’s model, is 3,000. In other words, the CDC is suggesting that within this group, it is preferable for 3,000 12- to 17-year-olds to go to the emergency room after getting vaccinated than for 200 12- to 17-year-olds to be hospitalized from Covid-19. (It’s worth noting that visiting the emergency department is not the same as a hospital admission, and perhaps some portion of the visits were unrelated to the vaccine, but even if 90 percent of the ER patients weren’t admitted, that still would equate to 300 admissions, more than the 200 for Covid-19 infection.) Moreover, as two peer-reviewed studies in a journal published by the American Academy of Pediatrics found, at least 40 percent of pediatric Covid-19 hospitalizations were for patients in the hospital merely with Covid-19, not from Covid-19, meaning the 200 hospitalizations Walensky is referencing may really be around 120.

The CDC, however, wants to make the case that the arresting numbers above only present an illusion of bad stakes for young people, in particular young males. On Good Morning America on June 24, Walensky said, “If we have a group of 12- to 17-year-olds who we're working to vaccinate over the next four months and can vaccinate 1 million of them, we could expect 30 to 40 of these mild self-limited cases of myocarditis … If we were to vaccinate all 1 million we would avert 8,000 cases of Covid, 200 hospitalizations, 50 ICU stays, and one death."

How did the CDC arrive at “30 to 40” cases? In the advisory committee meeting a slide was presented that showed that within 7 days following the second dose males aged 12 to 17 had a rate of 62.75 myocarditis cases per million, whereas females had a rate of 8.68. Averaging the two rates yields 35.72 cases. Yet the rate for young males is more than seven times that of young females. Lumping together two easily delineated cohorts, especially when data show a wildly disproportionate risk for one group, as Walensky did, “is epidemiologically misleading,” said Tracy Hoeg, a physician and epidemiologist who coauthored a study published by the CDC this year, and who is researching myocarditis data with Allison Krug, also an epidemiologist. “If there is a clear pattern that differs from one sex to another,” Hoeg said, reporting the two rates together “obscures the true findings.” It both downplays the risk to young males while making the risk seem higher than it is for young females. A summary slide shown at the meeting similarly, yet even more consequentially, merges not just sexes but also multiple age cohorts, creating a macro coed group of 12– to 39-year-olds, with a rate of 12.6 cases per million second doses, further burying the higher rate (of 62.75 cases) of myocarditis for young males."

 

If your headache last for more than four hours revert to ibuprofen.

 

Deaths may not increase as much as some may think though, as breakthrough cases are happening. (Look what keeps happening to the NY Yankees alone), but severe effects from the disease have been knocked down by the vax right?

 

Not high enough % vax to stop the spread. Measles waits

 

True, but the vast majority of vaccinated people aren't getting sick enough to even warrant seeking out a test. The Yankees are an interesting corner base because they do regular testing regardless of symptoms. I think it's safe to assume that the majority of positives are in the un-vaccinated population.

You are correct that severe effects are drastically reduced for those that are a vaxxed.

 

Some reports have them 90% vaxed I believe and several were known breakthroughs the last time it happened.
They are a really weird case. Perhaps a bad batch?

 

People, schools, parents, etc are just no processing those highlighted sections int eir thought making process. Schools need to remain masked until the kids can get a vaccine. Delta variant is a different animal and it is changing the rules.

I now know of 4 people within my small circle that were fully vaccinated with Moderna or pfizer and have contracted covid with mild to moderate symptoms sufficient to warrant being tested. I am back to wearing a mask in public indoor places and limited my restaurant dining to outside only.

"In any other time, if we had a new disease that killed 300 children, we would be pulling out all the stops, we would be doing everything we could to protect them," Dr. Andrew Pavia, the chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah told Insider.
.............................
The most dangerous time for kids who get COVID-19 is not when they're suffering through the disease, Pavia says.

It typically takes three to six weeks after that for children to develop MIS-C, a rare condition that can impact both mild and severe COVID-19 cases.

Even if children don't get MIS-C, there are still long-term risks. Hotez told CNN that as many as 30% of children infected with COVID-19 will have long COVID.

 

more testing. Delta is overcoming vaccines enough to infect and even produce symptoms in more and more people I know about personally. Not putting them in hospital sick but sick enough to warrant tests

 

Many aren't processing it because from the outset, they rejected that it was serious, i.e. a reflexive psychological resistance. No doubt though that a bunch have been influenced by the persistent disinformation efforts and/or more simply the spread of misinformation on social media. But anyone who pays close attention and knows a little about infectious disease and tries to look at it objectively have long expected that there would be mutations that could not only make matters worse, but lead to the pandemic being extended.

Truth is we don't know when we'll come out of this mess and no one, including children and healthy adults, are at zero risk.