Covid Vaccine Distribution

[ABQ2015]

I've been ignoring the headlines about breakthrough cases, because nothing I've seen says they're anything approaching unexpected numbers. To me, it's not news. We all heard how the vaccines are 95% (and similar numbers) effective. It doesn't take a math wiz to figure out that there are going to be some people in the "other" 5% or whatever who get exposed.

But I just read one article which reported on preliminary studies saying something like .0075% of vaccinated people get infected. Obviously, it's much too soon to have anything like definitive numbers on this.

But even assuming an order of magnitude error, I kinda like those odds.

See post #3096 in this thread where Chuckanut provides explanation of what is meant by 95% efficacy. It is not what most of us think it means.

 

[Koolau]

See post #3096 in this thread where Chuckanut provides explanation of what is meant by 95% efficacy. It is not what most of us think it means.

This is the sort of info the media could elucidate for us. Too bad they prefer the confusion of normal ignorance. I guess it leads to more clicks though YMMV.

 

[audreyh1]

See post #3096 in this thread where Chuckanut provides explanation of what is meant by 95% efficacy. It is not what most of us think it means.

It means compared to unvaccinated, 95% less chance of symptomatic infection.

Still, the extreme low absolute number breakthrough infections so far are impressive considering the high amount of virus still circulating.

Someone had pointed out that during a period where there had been 0.02% breakthrough infections in Oregon, only 4% Oregonians had been infected. But that’s a 200x difference! Quite impressive.

 

[disneysteve]

The pause on J&J has been lifted so they can start rolling that out again.

 

[Chuckanut]

It means compared to unvaccinated, 95% less chance of symptomatic infection.

As a point of comparison, the new Malaria vaccine in initial tests is 77% effective. And that is cause for great celebration as it is the first such vaccine to pass the 75% level. Previous vaccines have been much less effective. Hopefully, the future tests will be this successful.

94%, 85% , 77%, etc., it's all better than needless suffering and death.

 

[Amethyst]

I've seen at least two explanations in the newspapers. Unfortunately most people don't really read the paper - no interest, or not enough time. And it is not the sort of thing TV does well.

EDIT: The Washington Post provided a COVID vaccine primer, which should be visible to everybody, since they aren't putting a firewall on COVID info.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2020/covid-vaccines-what-you-need-to-know/

Excerpt from a more detailed, illustrated answer to the question, "Will the vaccine protect me from getting the coronavirus?":
The two-shot Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been shown to be 91 percent effective after six months of follow-up. Out of 927 cases of covid-19 with symptoms in the trial, 850 cases were in the placebo group. It was 95 percent effective against severe illness. Data from the real-world use of the vaccine has suggested there is a level of protection after the first shot."

I have a rhetorical question, too. How many readers' eyes probably glazed over after the first sentence or two?

Although the reporters did a good job of answering the commonest vaccine questions, a lot of people would a) never see it to begin with, or b) decide it is "too hard" and skip to something else.

This is the sort of info the media could elucidate for us. Too bad they prefer the confusion of normal ignorance. I guess it leads to more clicks though YMMV.

 

[JoeWras]

EDIT: The Washington Post provided a COVID vaccine primer, which should be visible to everybody, since they aren't putting a firewall on COVID info.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2020/covid-vaccines-what-you-need-to-know/

Visually, I thought the "dot diagram" under "Will the vaccine protect me" was great! I won't cut 'n paste it out of copyright respect.

I think one reason we haven't seen this kind of diagram widely is that it both shows how effective the vaccine is, but also shows how few people got the virus during the trial period. It is that relative rarity that, unfortunately, some folks have instinctively grabbed onto with regard to their behaviors.

One thing about statistics in general for both COVID and other hot topics is that in today's bifurcated political world, I've unfortunately seen them abused by both sides. People instead listen to the loud personalities on both sides who bend the numbers. So the points above about "too long, didn't read" are spot on. No time to go deep, just listen to <your favorite whomever> who likely has a goal for more clicks, or winning an election.

 

[Koolau]

Visually, I thought the "dot diagram" under "Will the vaccine protect me" was great! I won't cut 'n paste it out of copyright respect.

<SNIP>

I agree that "dotted graph visual" told a lot. First, the disease itself wasn't (at least visually) "raging" among the general population tested. Second, the difference in disease rates between placebo and vaccinated was stunning and difficult to ignore.

I see click bait every time I use my particular browsing tool. Most Covid stories are about "hey, there's a different strain and 'maybe' the vaccine isn't as effective against it." Or, "this - fill in the anecdote - may mean we're never going back to normal."

IMHO Every Covid story should begin with "Folks, the vaccines work. You should be vaccinated unless you and your doc decide the risk is too high for you." THEN, if you must use click bait, go for it. When finished, the story should say "Oh, by the way, the vaccines work, etc. etc."

Anything less (or more) is probably media at less than it's finest, but YMMV.

 

[sengsational]

The dot graph is instructive, but leaves out the temporal aspect of the pandemic. Just because only a handful of non vaccinated people got disease during the span of the trial says nothing about how many would eventually get disease if no intervention was administered. The "best" trial would have everyone infected on purpose, but that would have killed a lot of people that otherwise would not have died, so the IRB might have a little problem with that study design

 

[RobbieB]

Wife got her second shot today. Road trip in 2 weeks -

 

[JoeWras]

The dot graph is instructive, but leaves out the temporal aspect of the pandemic. Just because only a handful of non vaccinated people got disease during the span of the trial says nothing about how many would eventually get disease if no intervention was administered. The "best" trial would have everyone infected on purpose, but that would have killed a lot of people that otherwise would not have died, so the IRB might have a little problem with that study design

Well yeah, I was clear it was during the trial period. And I was hoping someone would bring up the time period issue, so thanks Sengs. You see, it is that aspect that is confusing for many and one reason people have thought this is a hoax or whatever.

Look at how few dots there are even in the unvaccinated. My chances are so low.... Blah, blah.

Understanding probability is more than picking out red and black balls.

 

[Koolau]

Well yeah, I was clear it was during the trial period. And I was hoping someone would bring up the time period issue, so thanks Sengs. You see, it is that aspect that is confusing for many and one reason people have thought this is a hoax or whatever.

Look at how few dots there are even in the unvaccinated. My chances are so low.... Blah, blah.

Understanding probability is more than picking out red and black balls.

So true and again, this is where the media could be SO helpful - tracking down experts on such subjects. Interviewing them with the purpose of clarifying issues to the uneducated. And NOT sensationalizing every little twist and turn in the larger narrative. But, why do I waste the ink (er electrons.) YMMV

 

[MichaelB]

So true and again, this is where the media could be SO helpful - tracking down experts on such subjects. Interviewing them with the purpose of clarifying issues to the uneducated. And NOT sensationalizing every little twist and turn in the larger narrative. But, why do I waste the ink (er electrons.) YMMV

There’s an abundance of smart, helpful, expert analysis out there for COVID. If the media you follow doesn’t provide the analysis you need, perhaps consider broadening your sources?

 

[Freedom56]

West Virginia to offer $100 savings bonds to young people between 16 and 35 to get vaccinated.

https://www.axios.com/west-virginia...nes-8f81e6f0-0b21-42df-b793-8cd8bd88d4e8.html

Why it matters: The initiative is meant to incentivize people to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Just last week Justice said the state had "hit a wall" with vaccinations, and was having particular difficulty convincing young people to get the shot, local news station WBOY reported.

I think if they offered a Sony PS5, they would get to their target of 70% in about 2 weeks.

 

[JoeWras]

This was predicted by one of our wise members weeks ago!

 

[Gearhead Jim]

There’s an abundance of smart, helpful, expert analysis out there for COVID. If the media you follow doesn’t provide the analysis you need, perhaps consider broadening your sources?

What sources do you use?

 

[RobbieB]

If you don't want to vax, don't vax. If you don't vax I don't want to know you. Easy.

 

[athena53]

What sources do you use?

The question wasn't directed at me but I use the BBC (Business Daily and documentaries) podcasts as well as Dr. Peter Attia, whom someone recommended here. His interview with Dr. Paul Offitt, who helped develop the rotavirus vaccine, was really informative and came straight from the mouth of someone in the field. It's available on the front page here. https://peterattiamd.com/podcast/page/3/

Early on I listened to investment-related podcasts that brought in health experts because they were most interested in trends, what might happen in the future, etc. that would affect the markets and didn't have a political agenda.

I'm also watching the daily news in German (Erste Deutsche Tagesschau) so I've watched the roller-coaster situation in Germany and elsewhere, and listening to some French documentaries on RFI. The latter talk about developments by country.

This is an uncertain situation, and our knowledge is constantly changing. I look for general consensus among people I consider credible.

 

[harllee]

If you don't want to vax, don't vax. If you don't vax I don't want to know you. Easy.

But we need enough people to get vaccinated so that we get herd immunity to protect those who cannot get vaccinated--for example infants may not be able to be vaccinated, people with cancer on chemo drugs etc. Also to protect people who have been vaccinated but for whom the vaccine does not create much of an immune response --for example people with autoimmune diseases.

 

[Amethyst]

Right. While I applaud the administration's push to get shots in arms fast, they need to do more messaging about why it's not only about each individual's choice, but about the whole country (and the whole world, really).

They will never get through to everyone (there's none so deaf as those who will not hear) but a better message could get more people on board.

But we need enough people to get vaccinated so that we get herd immunity to protect those who cannot get vaccinated--for example infants may not be able to be vaccinated, people with cancer on chemo drugs etc. Also to protect people who have been vaccinated but for whom the vaccine does not create much of an immune response --for example people with autoimmune diseases.

 

[MichaelB]

What sources do you use?

Stat News is a high quality magazine specialized on biotech, pharma, and life sciences. They’ve made their Coronavirus coverage free. I also read the Twitter posts of Marc Lipsitch, Eric Topol, Scott Gottleib, and Tom Friedman. They have expert knowledge, share freely, and regularly point to other expert sources.

But we need enough people to get vaccinated so that we get herd immunity to protect those who cannot get vaccinated--for example infants may not be able to be vaccinated, people with cancer on chemo drugs etc. Also to protect people who have been vaccinated but for whom the vaccine does not create much of an immune response --for example people with autoimmune diseases.

Peer pressure is a factor here, as it strongly reinforces specific behavior, and it still seems negative. Leaders from within the no-vax community need to lead this change IMO.

 

[regenaeb]

West Virginia to offer $100 savings bonds to young people between 16 and 35 to get vaccinated.

https://www.axios.com/west-virginia...nes-8f81e6f0-0b21-42df-b793-8cd8bd88d4e8.html

Why it matters: The initiative is meant to incentivize people to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Just last week Justice said the state had "hit a wall" with vaccinations, and was having particular difficulty convincing young people to get the shot, local news station WBOY reported.

I think if they offered a Sony PS5, they would get to their target of 70% in about 2 weeks.

I love this idea! I don't know that a savings bond is going to entice 16-35 year olds, most of them won't even know what a savings bond is. But an advertisement for a free PS5, the budget Iphone (which my preteens have) or a nintendo switch and you might get them lined up down the street at the mass vaccination clinic.

 

[Gumby]

How about the message that getting vaccinated shows that you are a good person who cares about others? And also a truly patriotic citizen who stepped forward when his country called. Defending our nation against invaders, even if they be microscopic, is as vital and important as any military service.

 

[regenaeb]

36 hours past my second shot of Moderna. No side effects other then a sore arm at injection site. My 27 year old brother got his second shot of Moderna last week and he had to take the next day off work because he felt unwell. People really have different reactions to the same vaccine.

2 weeks until Freedom Day for me, which happens to be Mother's Day. I think I will let my 12 year olds make me breakfast as usual, but let Hubby take me out to eat in a restaurant that night. I have not eaten in a restaurant since March, 2020. I miss eating out. It will be a glorious Mother's Day.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

How about the message that getting vaccinated shows that you are a good person who cares about others? And also a truly patriotic citizen who stepped forward when his country called. Defending our nation against invaders, even if they be microscopic, is as vital and important as any military service.

I like the way you frame it, but those that are against it are very loud and proud about their decision (at least around here they are) and well, I can't go much more into it for obvious reasons.