Appreciate the shout out. I do believe that your VE numbers are overly pessimistic.
I believe a significant portion of the "Unvaccinated" are actually Previously Infected. And so the case rates are a weighted average of that case rate and the truly non-immune case rates. This gives an inaccurate picture of VE. (Not that VE is great, but I don't think it's truly negative yet).
The admissions and mortality give a better picture because even if 90% of a cohort in previously infected, the total number of cases coming from that portion of the group is very small and the majority is coming from the actually non-immune who enjoy none of the existing antibodies and protection.
I guess my first question is whether Pfizer and Moderna controlled for previous infection in their clinical trials. (I'm legitimately curious, have no idea, but if they didn't...)
My second question is why we think there would be a significant *differential* rate of previous infecteness affecting the "unvaccinated" population. People who got injected could also have been previously infected, and controlling for this in any meaningful way over time would be hard.
My third question isn't really a question, just a statement. When your product is *prima facie* showing -200% efficacy, you've got a lot of 'splainin' to do and you can't just blame it all on this or that favourite excuse. As well there is the element of time. It keeps getting worse and worse and worse. How can prior infectedness (or any other pet excuse) explain why the pharmaceutical product performance gets worse with each passing week?
Appreciate the shout out. I do believe that your VE numbers are overly pessimistic.
I believe a significant portion of the "Unvaccinated" are actually Previously Infected. And so the case rates are a weighted average of that case rate and the truly non-immune case rates. This gives an inaccurate picture of VE. (Not that VE is great, but I don't think it's truly negative yet).
The admissions and mortality give a better picture because even if 90% of a cohort in previously infected, the total number of cases coming from that portion of the group is very small and the majority is coming from the actually non-immune who enjoy none of the existing antibodies and protection.
That being said, this +VE doesn't actually mean vaccines are saving lives. The EthicalSkeptic has a great chart to show this https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1499606754841214977
He earlier had calculated 1.5 lives saved per 32k vaccinations. But this new chart means the NNT is going to be much much higher.
I guess my first question is whether Pfizer and Moderna controlled for previous infection in their clinical trials. (I'm legitimately curious, have no idea, but if they didn't...)
My second question is why we think there would be a significant *differential* rate of previous infecteness affecting the "unvaccinated" population. People who got injected could also have been previously infected, and controlling for this in any meaningful way over time would be hard.
My third question isn't really a question, just a statement. When your product is *prima facie* showing -200% efficacy, you've got a lot of 'splainin' to do and you can't just blame it all on this or that favourite excuse. As well there is the element of time. It keeps getting worse and worse and worse. How can prior infectedness (or any other pet excuse) explain why the pharmaceutical product performance gets worse with each passing week?
Excellent, informative reading material, thank you. Added bonus is the Other Points of Interest section which I really appreciated.