I hope you're right. But with antibody levels at 95% I'm not sure where we go from here? Only 1 in 20 people are without antibodies. Yet, we're seeing 30k+ (and rising) cases. It doesn't make sense!
5% of people without antibodies is about 3 million people across the uk so there is still a big reservoir of people out there. Plus you can still be susceptible to catching it if you have been vaccinated, although the risk is considerably lower if you have been double jabbed.
There is a long history of scientists lying for money. They usually release their findings on subjects such as:
Another take on this particular tableThere's a great account here of how headline statistics can be highly misleading on vaccine efficacy.
Short version:
Whilst the headline vaccine efficacy for Israeli data against severe disease is only 67%(!) the actual efficacy for any individual is far higher, generally >>80% and ~90% or higher for most ages.
"Simpson's Paradox" is the technical term.
View attachment 24199
Looks terrible, right?
Breakdown by age:
View attachment 24200
Looks brilliant. This is the same data !
Israeli data: How can efficacy vs. severe disease be strong when 60% of hospitalized are vaccinated?
A surge involving the rapidly-transmitting Delta variant in heavily vaccinated countries has led to much hand-wringing that the vaccines are not effective against Delta, or vaccine effectivenss wanes after 4-6 months. This has fueled anti-vaccine sentiment suggesting the vaccines are not...www.covid-datascience.com
The thing they didn't mention which would make the vaccine look even better is how they define a severe case. If a severe case is defined as whether someone goes into hospital, it doesn't differentiate between those that just go in for a few days with those that need to stay for much longer. I have seen stats that suggested the average stay in hospital for a vaccinated patient is just 2 or 3 days which is much less than the average for the unvaccinated. If serious illness was defined as a hospital stay for longer than a week I would expect the efficacy figures to be even higher.There's a great account here of how headline statistics can be highly misleading on vaccine efficacy.
Short version:
Whilst the headline vaccine efficacy for Israeli data against severe disease is only 67%(!) the actual efficacy for any individual is far higher, generally >>80% and ~90% or higher for most ages.
"Simpson's Paradox" is the technical term.
View attachment 24199
Looks terrible, right?
Breakdown by age:
View attachment 24200
Looks brilliant. This is the same data !
Israeli data: How can efficacy vs. severe disease be strong when 60% of hospitalized are vaccinated?
A surge involving the rapidly-transmitting Delta variant in heavily vaccinated countries has led to much hand-wringing that the vaccines are not effective against Delta, or vaccine effectivenss wanes after 4-6 months. This has fueled anti-vaccine sentiment suggesting the vaccines are not...
It shouldn't even be glorified by giving it a fancy name, it's just a hopeless (sometimes even criminal) misuse of data.
Sadly they are stupid. But they MUST BE CHALENGED or other stupids will believe them
Not heard of that. But I've used Simpson's Rule !!
A simple analogy you could give him, that a pharmacy colleague gave to me. Imagine he catches the virus and his outcomes could be one of; no symptoms at all so he doesn’t even know he’s got it; mild symptoms that respond to paracetamol and the like; quite bad symptoms, leading to five days in bed and feeling pretty wretched; bad symptoms, needing a stay in hospital and oxygen, very bad symptoms, leading to a stay on a hospital ventilator (which isn’t a cake walk) and, finally, really, really bad symptoms leading to any or all the above and then death.
Similar to the narrative I got from an anti vaxxer a few months ago.
www.bbc.co.uk