"It is important to always compare it against the proportion of people who remain unvaccinated...Suppose Singapore achieves a rate of 100% fully vaccinated...then all infections will stem from the vaccinated people and none from the unvaccinated."
It would be logical if that would have been the case but it’s not and never will be. Vaccination rate in Singapore stands at 75% which is the same as vaccination infection rate among reported cases.
@micro Vax rate is 44% per the article. Partially vaxxed doesn’t not equal vaxxed for this virus / vaccine. The entire world has been clear about that.
> Which part does not agree? It clearly says vaccinated are 75% of all recent infections. And about 75% of the country has been inoculated. Perfect correlation.
You're just drawing wrong conclusions from two numbers that coincidentally are the same in some report. (And it wasn't even 75% - it was 44% fully vaccinated). Anyways, assuming 75% vaccinated... If a country has 1 million people and 1 million are all infected and 750,000 of them were vaccinated, then we have a problem with the vaccine! If a country has 1 million people and 100 are infected and 75 of them are vaccinated, then we DO NOT have a problem. The vaccine works because instead of 1 million infected, you only have 100 infected. Your analysis labels both scenarios as having the same "vaccine efficacy" when they are clearly not the same. Thus your analysis is completely incorrect.
> It clearly says that 40% of all recent infections are the vaccinated (no known covid case before) and only 1% of those who had covid before got infected. What can be more clear than this? It is essentially the same claim. Natural immunity is what matters, everything else is marginal at best.
If 100 people get infected by Covid previously, and 1 million people get the vaccine... it doesn't matter what you're looking at whether it be number of (re)infections, number of births, or number of people who like pizza, you're always less likely to find someone who was previously infected by Covid. Of all the pepole in Isreal who like pizza, I bet there are more people who got a vaccine that like pizza, than people who were infected with Covid and like pizza (because there are a LOT more people who got a vaccine). So does contracting Covid make you less likely to enjoy pizza? Of course not, you are just less likely to sample an infected person who had Covid before.
You need to look at the denominator and normalize before you compare percentages blindly: "With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID. By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave."
0.0086% of people who were infected with COVID got infected again. And 0.0578% of people who got the vaccine got infected. That shows the vaccine is pretty much as effective as getting COVID. The "6.72 times more likely" difference is just a factor of 10 and at percentages this low, there's no way you can filter out other variables. For example, people infected with COVID often develop long-haul symptoms that prevent them from going out to party all night and getting exposed to COVID again, thus lowering their representation in the data. Or, newly-vaccinated, non-infected people tend to be younger and go out more to get exposed to COVID, whereas the original infections tended to be among elderly people who don't exactly frequent bars and nightclubs. This can easily explain a factor of 6.72.
OP, please retract your bad and incorrect statistics. I recommend either by deleting your original post or editing it so that it is clear to everyone that your analysis is incorrect. And in the future, when you see statistics, please THINK over both sides of the argument before you conclude what your biases want you to conclude.
Many of the unvaccinated had covid already before and built similar level f protection to what vaccine gives. So the rates might not be that different after all. Numbers are small, I am not worried
Edit: had 'vaccinated' initially, meant unvaccinated
comments
I don’t think this is newsworthy that 44 out of 3.16M vaccinated people got the virus.
And if you want, you can also do 560 to the 5.75M unvaccinated, which is also 0.01%.
Seems like vaccine might not be as effective?
You're just drawing wrong conclusions from two numbers that coincidentally are the same in some report. (And it wasn't even 75% - it was 44% fully vaccinated). Anyways, assuming 75% vaccinated... If a country has 1 million people and 1 million are all infected and 750,000 of them were vaccinated, then we have a problem with the vaccine! If a country has 1 million people and 100 are infected and 75 of them are vaccinated, then we DO NOT have a problem. The vaccine works because instead of 1 million infected, you only have 100 infected. Your analysis labels both scenarios as having the same "vaccine efficacy" when they are clearly not the same. Thus your analysis is completely incorrect.
> It clearly says that 40% of all recent infections are the vaccinated (no known covid case before) and only 1% of those who had covid before got infected. What can be more clear than this? It is essentially the same claim. Natural immunity is what matters, everything else is marginal at best.
If 100 people get infected by Covid previously, and 1 million people get the vaccine... it doesn't matter what you're looking at whether it be number of (re)infections, number of births, or number of people who like pizza, you're always less likely to find someone who was previously infected by Covid. Of all the pepole in Isreal who like pizza, I bet there are more people who got a vaccine that like pizza, than people who were infected with Covid and like pizza (because there are a LOT more people who got a vaccine). So does contracting Covid make you less likely to enjoy pizza? Of course not, you are just less likely to sample an infected person who had Covid before.
You need to look at the denominator and normalize before you compare percentages blindly: "With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID. By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave."
0.0086% of people who were infected with COVID got infected again. And 0.0578% of people who got the vaccine got infected. That shows the vaccine is pretty much as effective as getting COVID. The "6.72 times more likely" difference is just a factor of 10 and at percentages this low, there's no way you can filter out other variables. For example, people infected with COVID often develop long-haul symptoms that prevent them from going out to party all night and getting exposed to COVID again, thus lowering their representation in the data. Or, newly-vaccinated, non-infected people tend to be younger and go out more to get exposed to COVID, whereas the original infections tended to be among elderly people who don't exactly frequent bars and nightclubs. This can easily explain a factor of 6.72.
OP, please retract your bad and incorrect statistics. I recommend either by deleting your original post or editing it so that it is clear to everyone that your analysis is incorrect. And in the future, when you see statistics, please THINK over both sides of the argument before you conclude what your biases want you to conclude.
Numbers are small, I am not worried
Edit: had 'vaccinated' initially, meant unvaccinated