HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 15,739 breakthrough COVID...

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 12:33 AM

15,739 breakthrough COVID-19 cases in Massachusetts; 3,098 reported in one week

BOSTON (SHNS) – A total of 15,739 breakthrough COVID-19 infections in people fully vaccinated against the virus have now been recorded in Massachusetts, the Department of Public Health reported Tuesday.

The new total, as of Aug. 21, represents an increase of 3,098 from the previous week’s report and accounts for 0.35 percent of the more than 4.4 million fully vaccinated Bay Staters. Of those 15,739 cases, 571 people have been hospitalized and 131 have died…….

In the previous week, breakthrough cases represented 40 percent of the total. The DPH has cautioned that there are probably more breakthrough infections and hospitalizations among fully vaccinated people than it counts and can report.

https://www.wwlp.com/news/massachusetts/15739-breakthrough-covid-19-cases-in-massachusetts-3098-reported-in-one-week/amp/

69 replies, 2448 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply 15,739 breakthrough COVID-19 cases in Massachusetts; 3,098 reported in one week (Original post)
womanofthehills Aug 26 OP
PSPS Aug 26 #1
Lucky Luciano Aug 26 #2
PSPS Aug 26 #4
LisaL Aug 26 #19
Phoenix61 Aug 26 #28
LisaL Aug 26 #35
PSPS Aug 26 #44
Ms. Toad Aug 26 #64
Leith Aug 26 #51
Demsrule86 Aug 26 #58
PSPS Aug 26 #45
LisaL Aug 26 #61
stopdiggin Aug 26 #3
PSPS Aug 26 #5
stopdiggin Aug 26 #6
PSPS Aug 26 #9
marybourg Aug 26 #11
GulfCoast66 Aug 26 #14
marybourg Aug 26 #16
rateyes Aug 26 #18
LisaL Aug 26 #24
Phoenix61 Aug 26 #29
LisaL Aug 26 #34
PSPS Aug 26 #46
Lucky Luciano Aug 26 #49
PSPS Aug 26 #52
Lucky Luciano Aug 26 #53
PSPS Aug 26 #55
Lucky Luciano Aug 26 #56
The Magistrate Aug 26 #12
LisaL Aug 26 #22
The Magistrate Aug 26 #38
Lucky Luciano Aug 26 #39
The Magistrate Aug 26 #40
Lucky Luciano Aug 26 #50
LisaL Aug 26 #21
Phoenix61 Aug 26 #30
LisaL Aug 26 #36
PSPS Aug 26 #47
Ms. Toad Aug 26 #65
LisaL Aug 26 #20
PatSeg Aug 26 #7
cadoman Aug 26 #8
PatSeg Aug 26 #10
GulfCoast66 Aug 26 #15
uponit7771 Aug 26 #17
mucifer Aug 26 #37
PatSeg Aug 26 #41
marybourg Aug 26 #48
PatSeg Aug 26 #57
GulfCoast66 Aug 26 #13
LisaL Aug 26 #23
Phoenix61 Aug 26 #31
GulfCoast66 Aug 26 #33
Demsrule86 Aug 26 #59
LisaL Aug 26 #62
ProfessorGAC Aug 26 #60
stopdiggin Aug 26 #63
ProfessorGAC Aug 26 #66
stopdiggin Aug 26 #68
Scrivener7 Aug 26 #25
Azathoth Aug 26 #26
ecstatic Aug 26 #67
Azathoth Aug 26 #69
genxlib Aug 26 #27
Klaralven Aug 26 #32
Hugin Aug 26 #42
Klaralven Aug 26 #43
Lucky Luciano Aug 26 #54

Response to womanofthehills (Original post)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 12:37 AM

1. This is great news and indicates the vaccine is 99.7% effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 12:44 AM

2. Not sure where you get that.

40% of the cases were breakthroughs. Also 131 out of 15k died or about 0.85% of the known breakthrough cases died. There is not enough data here to conclude efficacy, but 99.7 is high. What seems quite clear is the need for boosters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucky Luciano (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 12:51 AM

4. Simple math: 16K breakthrough cases divided by 4.4 million fully vaxxed equals 0.36%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 06:58 AM

19. That's not how efficacy is calculated.

NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #19)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:30 AM

28. From the article.

“The new total, as of Aug. 21, represents an increase of 3,098 from the previous week’s report and accounts for 0.35 percent of the more than 4.4 million fully vaccinated Bay Staters.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #28)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 08:59 AM

35. Again, tha thas nothing to do with vaccine efficacy.

To calculate vaccine efficacy, you have to know the number of infected among vaccinated and un-vaccinated. Those are the numbers used to calculate efficacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #35)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 10:46 AM

44. Sorry, but you're mixed up.

How can the un-vaccinated be included in any vaccine efficacy measurement? Do you include people who don't use seat belts when measuring how well a seat belt works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #44)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:45 PM

64. You are just plain wrong.

Vaccine efficiency is determined as measured against the placebo (being unvacciated).

A 95% efficience (the original reports) was obtained based on this data:

>43,000 participants (evenly split into vaccine v. placebo). 162 cases of COVID 19 in the placebo group;8 cases in the vaccinated group.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine

The way vaccine efficiency is actually measured:

8 cases among vaccinated individuals/162 cases among unvaccinated individuals = .04938 (about 5%) as many cases as in the placebo group = efficiency of 95%. (100%-5%)

The calculation you are doing is a snapshot in time, and depends totally on the exposure, the mitigation measures in place, the viral load in the community, etc.

Applied to the study data - it would not only make the efficiency of vaccines well over 99% - it would also make the efficiency of doing nothing at all over 99%

8 cases/21500 vaccinated = .00037 => 100%-.037% = 99.963%,
162 cases/21500 unvaccinated= .00753 =>100% - .753% = 99.247% effective.

If not being vaccinated is 99.247% effective in fending off COVID, why bother with vaccinations at all?

And yes, the effectiveness of seatbelts is measured exactly the same way: Injuries to seatbelt users/injuries to people not wearing seatbelts.

Educate yourself, rather than digging a deeper hole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #35)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 12:13 PM

51. Instead of repeating no it isn't over and over

Post number 35 is a halfhearted try to explain it.

From the WHO website

A vaccine’s efficacy is measured in a controlled clinical trial and is based on how many people who got vaccinated developed the ‘outcome of interest’ (usually disease) compared with how many people who got the placebo (dummy vaccine) developed the same outcome. Once the study is complete, the numbers of sick people in each group are compared, in order to calculate the relative risk of getting sick depending on whether or not the subjects received the vaccine. From this we get the efficacy – a measure of how much the vaccine lowered the risk of getting sick. If a vaccine has high efficacy, a lot fewer people in the group who received the vaccine got sick than the people in the group who received the placebo.

So, for example, let’s imagine a vaccine with a proven efficacy of 80%. This means that – out of the people in the clinical trial – those who received the vaccine were at a 80% lower risk of developing disease than the group who received the placebo. This is calculated by comparing the number of cases of disease in the vaccinated group versus the placebo group. An efficacy of 80% does not mean that 20% of the vaccinated group will become ill.


Yes, posters should use the term "effectiveness" instead of "efficacy" because the numbers are clearly showing that being vaccinated is an advantage to getting covid and experiencing milder symptoms. And it appears that some posters are using the ordinary dictionary definition of efficacy instead of the scientific definition (like the decades long misunderstanding of the scientific definition of theory ). That does not change the fact that we are all on the same page. Quibbling about which word to use is not the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #35)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 05:01 PM

58. Yes it does. It indicates that if you are vaccinated, you are unlikely to die even if you get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #19)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 10:47 AM

45. Of course it is. It's the very definition of efficacy. Please enlighten us with your wisdom. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #45)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 05:23 PM

61. You don't know the definition of efficacy.

NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 12:51 AM

3. Ummmm?

Don't mean to be derogatory, but - that's just ...

(not a chicken little here - about either the vaccines, or the delta variant. vaccination is still by far our best option. but - new information must be acknowledged and accounted for.)

----- -----

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopdiggin (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 12:55 AM

5. Simple math: 16K breakthrough cases divided by 4.4 million fully vaxxed equals 0.36%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 12:58 AM

6. you're digging yourself deeper

if you don't understand these things, then just quit.
---- -----

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopdiggin (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 01:10 AM

9. What are you talking about? The same figure is in the OP.

Maybe you're confused because the figures are for fully vaxxed people, not the population at large. This means vaccination is the way to go. Otherwise, please enlighten all of us with your wisdom. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 01:13 AM

11. Yup. Says it right there in the article.

And my electronic calculator agrees. In fact I get 0.3636363636. Isn’t there a name for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marybourg (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 01:58 AM

14. Prime number? I used to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 02:26 AM

16. Wickipedia seems to say its a "rational number".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marybourg (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 05:26 AM

18. It's a repeating decimal which makes

It, also, a rational number since it can be expressed as a fraction with integers in both the numerator and denominator. In this case 4/11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marybourg (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:06 AM

24. The name would be you have no a clue.

Efficacy of the vaccine is not calculated this way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #24)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:31 AM

29. From the article.

“The new total, as of Aug. 21, represents an increase of 3,098 from the previous week’s report and accounts for 0.35 percent of the more than 4.4 million fully vaccinated Bay Staters.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #29)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 08:57 AM

34. And?

That has nothing to do with how vaccine efficacy is calculated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #34)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 10:49 AM

46. Yes it is. How would you measure it?

How can the un-vaccinated be included in any vaccine efficacy measurement? Do you include people who don't use seat belts when measuring how well a seat belt works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #46)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 11:54 AM

49. Seat belts.

Yes of course! Probability of serious injury or death when wearing a seat belt compared to not wearing the seat belt indicates whether seat belts help! They do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucky Luciano (Reply #49)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 12:20 PM

52. No, that measures the benefit of deciding to use a seat belt, not how well the seat belt works.

SCENARIO 1 (wrong way): 100 people get in an identical crash. 5 are wearing a seat belt. 55 people are seriously injured and none of those was wearing a seat belt. Therefore, seat belts are 45% effective at preventing serious injury.

SCENARIO 2 (correct way): 100 people get in an identical crash. 5 are wearing a seat belt. 55 people are seriously injured and none of those was wearing a seat belt. Therefore, seat belts are 100% effective at preventing serious injury.

In this Covid discussion, we're seeing that, among vaccinated people, over 99% have had no breakthrough infections. In other words, get your damn vaccination!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #52)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 12:26 PM

53. Still bigly wrong

You can only count efficacy if one is exposed to a proper dose of virus. Not all people are exposed to the virus. The best way to compare is what percent of unvaccinated get sick to the percentage of vaccinated that get sick. You would strongly hope that the vaccinated have a much lower proportion getting sick and that is indeed the case…but it is not 99.7% effective. At this stage, it appears to be around 60%, which helps a ton, but is not the 90-95% number touted early on which may be correct up to couple months after vaccination. It does, unfortunately, appear to wear off after more time though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucky Luciano (Reply #53)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 12:35 PM

55. LOL. Whatever. I'm done. You're just being a contrarian now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #55)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 12:41 PM

56. I was gonna say the same that you're being intentionally obtuse.

If you cite the Israeli studies and some others, they will give ranges of 40-60% efficacy after 6 months have passed.

There does not exist any study citing 99.7%. That would be an incredible number and there would be only a handful of breakthrough infections if true - meaning if 1000 vaccinated people were exposed to a significant dose that would definitely sicken an unvaccinated person, only three get sick on average. That is not the case.

The good news is that it does seem that your are three times less likely to get sick if you are vaccinated and that’s a win, so people need to get vaccinated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 01:25 AM

12. You Are Pretty Much Right, Sir

The article states the number of cases in vaccinated persons is 0.35% of the total four million, four hundred thousand vaccinated persons, or about three in one thousand vaccinated persons.

Of those cases in vaccinated persons, five hundred seventy-one, or about one in thirty has been hospitalized, or about one in ten thousand vaccinated persons.

Of those five hundred seventy-one vaccinated persons hospitalized, one hundred thirty-one have died, roughly one quarter of the number hospitalized, or between two and three per one hundred thousand vaccinated persons.

That the number over one week is a fifth of the total is worth some attention, particularly if that trend continues or accelerates. It still has a great deal of room to expand before it gets into hailing distance of rates of infection, hospitalization, and death among an un-vaccinated population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #12)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:03 AM

22. OMG.

Efficacy is not calculated this way.
There are millions of un-vaccinated too, and not all of them have gotten sick.
The important number here is that 40% of infections are breakthrough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #22)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 09:07 AM

38. Apples And Oranges, Ma'am

I am not calculating overall efficacy, I am calculating a vaccinated person's possibility of serious outcomes --- hospitalizations and deaths.

Regarding overall risk:

Approximately one third of the state remains unvaccinated.

If cases among the vaccinated are two fifths of a week's total, then three fifths are among the unvaccinated.

Therefore the current risk of infection to an unvaccinated person is about three times as great as that to a vaccinated person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #12)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 09:34 AM

39. No no no

I don’t know how efficacy is calculated, but if I had to do a back of the envelope calculation, I would say:

36% are not vaccinated and 64% are.
Say the total population is 10000, so 6400 are vaccinated.
Say 100 got infected. 60 are not vaccinated and 40 are.

We then see that for the vaccinated people, 40/6400 or 1 in 160 got sick.
For the unvaccinated, we see 60/3600 or 1 in 60 got sick.

So, I read this as the vaccine reducing your chance of getting sick as described above from a 1 in 60 chance to a 1 in 160 chance.

So I would say efficacy is:

1 - (1/160) / (1/60) = 1 - 60/160 = 62.5%.

That’s my back if the envelope where I don’t really know the definition of efficacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucky Luciano (Reply #39)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 09:35 AM

40. See No. 38 Above, Sir

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #40)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 11:56 AM

50. Your last point above (post 38) is the key one. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:01 AM

21. You don't know how to do these calculations.

Breakthrough infections now represent 40% of infections in MA, per the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:32 AM

30. From the article.

“The new total, as of Aug. 21, represents an increase of 3,098 from the previous week’s report and accounts for 0.35 percent of the more than 4.4 million fully vaccinated Bay Staters.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #30)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 09:00 AM

36. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this.

It has nothing to do with vaccine efficacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #36)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 10:49 AM

47. Geesh! How woould you measure it?

How can the un-vaccinated be included in any vaccine efficacy measurement? Do you include people who don't use seat belts when measuring how well a seat belt works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #47)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:54 PM

65. Yes. Absolutely you included people who don't use seatbelts

in measuring the efficiency of seatbelts. Efficiency measures how effective the safety measure is compared to doing nothing. As for vaccines - how many cases of COVID in vaccinate dpeople compared to how many cases when we do nothing. For seatbelts - pick a bad outcome (death, for example) - efficiency measures how many deaths for seatbelt wearers v. how many deaths would happen anyway..

Efficiency = bad outcomes with the proposed safety measure/bad outcomes when doing nothing.

For seatbelts: Deaths while wearing seatbelts/Deaths while not wearing seatbelts.
For vaccines: Death or serious illness (the study endpoints) with vaccines/death or serious illness for unvaccinated people.

Way too many people on DU need a high school mathematics class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 06:59 AM

20. No, it's not.

NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Original post)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 01:02 AM

7. 131 have died?

That is a rather disturbing number, especially if those people were fully vaccinated. I am afraid that the nutters out there will use statistics like that as another excuse not to get the vaccine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 01:10 AM

8. wear a mask, vaccinate; let the experts fight the lunatics with their wrong numbers

We have science on our side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cadoman (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 01:12 AM

10. Even if we can get some of the reluctant ones

to get vaccinated, they are absolutely livid about the masks. You'd think it was a damn death sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 02:13 AM

15. Even one death is disturbing. But if vaccinated in MA driving is now more dangerous

Than dying of Covid if vaccinated.

I assume this OP was intended to cause concern and I get it. But for a math guy it does the opposite.

Not than I’m that much of a math guy, but I took statistics decades ago!

131 deaths out of 4.4 million vaccinated people is and over 99.5 percent chance of not dying if you get Covid and are vaccinated. And since most vaccinated people have no or mild symptoms and never get tested it is probably an even lower chance.

Im certainly not recommending to unmasks and businesses as normal. I still mask and am careful of my surroundings. But I know my risk is minimal now. Unlike last year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 03:30 AM

17. "...But for a math guy it does the opposite...", +1



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 09:05 AM

37. It depends. How many of the unvaxxed died from covid. That's important to compare

Also age and preexisting disease and age. Are as many pregnant women hospitalized with the vaccine as without etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mucifer (Reply #37)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 09:42 AM

41. Yes, the statistics are pretty incomplete

without those numbers as well. Unfortunately, all some people will see is "131 deaths" among the vaccinated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 11:48 AM

48. Out of 4.4 million! If you're one of the dead

it doesn’t matter how many didn’t die, but that’s a pretty impressive vaccine. That’s a death rate of .0029%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marybourg (Reply #48)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 04:59 PM

57. Yes, I agree

For the person who dies, the statistic is 100%, but of course it is reassuring for the rest of us that the death rate is so low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Original post)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 01:53 AM

13. That actually great news for we vaccinated folks.

Your chance of dying in a car crash is higher in that state than dying of Covid if vaccinated in Massachusetts!

I don’t care enough to do the math but in 2020 347 residents of Massachusetts died in car crashes. 4.4 million of there residents are vaccinated in a population less than 7 million. And kids under 12 can’t get vaccinated. Yet only 131 vaccinated people have died. 2021 is not over certainly, but it’s doubtful that the final number of vaccinated people dying will exceed car crashes.

I alway like posts which give me even more trust in the vaccine.

I’m still masking and being careful. A year ago it was because I did not want to die. Today it’s because I don’t want to be sick and potentially kill an older unvaccinated person. Although my concern about the unvaccinated is quickly dying.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #13)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:03 AM

23. 40% of infections are breakthrough is good news?

In which universe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:36 AM

31. In populations with a high rate of vaccination

this is what you see. A higher percentage of people who are vaccinated with the virus because they are a significantly larger portion of the population. It’s counter intuitive but it’s how it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 08:35 AM

33. In a universe with very high vaccination rates still practicing social distancing. That universe.

If the population was 100% vaccinated then 100% of the cases would be vaccinated.

The number to look at is deaths and hospitalization among the vaccinated population.

I never assumed back in March when I got the vaccine that I could no longer catch the virus. We knew it was 90% or so effective which is really good for a vaccine. But not perfect.

What I hoped, and now know is that it reduces my chance of dying to level more associated with other diseases I’m at risk of and a few of the activities I undertake in my daily life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 05:03 PM

59. Yes, this article had good news and I note you rounded up the true figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #59)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 05:24 PM

62. I didn't round anything up.

40% is the number right there in the OP article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 05:19 PM

60. This Universe

Per "Our World In Data", 65.5% of eligible recipients in MA are fully vaccinated, 74.8% at least one dose.
This means 25.2% of the population is responsible for 60% of new cases.
40% ÷ 0.748 = 0.5348
60% ÷ 0.252 = 2.381
That makes being unvaxxed increase one's odds of infection to 445% over being vaxxed.
I don't understand how you can't see that this is a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #60)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:23 PM

63. compared to being unvaccinated - yes.

But the number of 'breakthrough" cases in the vaccinated - can't be in any way construed as good news! What do you think the article was talking about? Boy - talk about a hijacked thread!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopdiggin (Reply #63)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 08:06 PM

66. I Know EXACTLY What This Thread Is About

It's unnecessary fear mongering that willfully ignores the silver lining while only seeing the dark cloud.
If they're both there, it's ridiculous to ignore one of them.
And, it's clear you didn't think through the math I just showed.
A high percentage of breakthrough cases when 70% of the population is vaxxed is a tautology.
Extend the numbers.
- 100% vaccination rate
- 1 Case
- 100% of cases are breakthrough
Of course the % of cases as breakthrough goes up as vaccination % increases.
And, nobody is hijacking any thread here.
This is an open discussion forum, and my point was obviously directly related to the point.
Not sure how you missed something so obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #66)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 08:44 PM

68. the POINT, sir

is that prior to delta - breakthrough cases had been exceedingly rare period. Now you can contort this into some manner of silver lining if that is your wish - but the point of the article was that these are some very concerning numbers and findings, that were not at all in the picture a fairly short time ago. I am not into fear mongering either, and totally concur that the vaccines have been and (for the most part) continue to be hugely effective. We should be selling "the shot' (and possibly 'the booster') to every soul that is willing to listen. But the 'breakthrough' aspect that is rearing it's ugly head (and that is in fact what we are talking about here) - particularly with the proposed ability for those breakthrough cases to become infectious and spreaders on their own - is a serious development (and public health consequence) indeed, and certainly not something that we should be attempting to gloss over - purely in an effort to sugar coat the news for the nervous public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Original post)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:14 AM

25. Massachusetts seems to have more of a problem with breakthroughs than other areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Original post)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:16 AM

26. 65% of MA is fully vaccinated... So I'm not sure how to take that 40%

On the one hand, it suggests that breakthrough infections are less common among the vaccinated. On the other, it suggests that vaccinated people are getting infected at a rate that is mucher closer to the rate of unvaccinated infections than is comfortable.

It also suggests that 1) the lower mortality rates among unvaccinated may soon start to climb back to parity and 2) the liklihood of a variant emerging that is capable of full vaccine escape is now exponentially higher given that there are major infection rates among people who have vaccine-induced antibodies, thereby creating a vast reservoir of environments where the virus is experiencing selective evolutionary pressure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Azathoth (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 08:22 PM

67. Was the mortality rate of the unvaccinated mentioned somewhere?

That's the part that is never mentioned in these articles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ecstatic (Reply #67)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 09:47 PM

69. No, but it seems likely that mortality rate will follow breakthrough infections rise

Given that rising breakthrough infections indicate some combination of waning resistance and increasingly vaccine-resistant strains.

First we'll get asymptomatic breakthrough infections, then mildly symptomatic breakthrough infections, then inevitably severe breakthrough infections.

The only question is how long we can use boosters to keep resetting this cycle before we need a new generation of vaccines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Original post)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:25 AM

27. I want more context behind the numbers

Finding a lot of breakthrough cases is more concerning if they are symptomatic and serious. A lot less concerning if they are not.

One question that always pops into my head in these scenarios is the demographic of who is testing and who is having serious cases.

For instance, the “back to school” period could be cause for testing a bunch of asymptomatic people who would have never been found otherwise. Which is something that is going to happen whenever you have a wave of testing of healthy people. It is important data for the prevalence of the virus and potential spread but doesn’t necessarily mean we should be more worried about catching it

Similarly if the hospitalizations and deaths skew older and sicker, it tells us more about the effectiveness of the vaccine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to womanofthehills (Original post)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 07:56 AM

32. The key information is that 40% of cases are in the 65% of vaccinated people.

Which means that 60% of the cases are in the 35% of unvaccinated people.

Let Pv be the probability of getting Covid if vaccinated, and Pu if unvaccinated. Let C be the number of cases, and N be the number of people.

Then 0.4*C = Pv*0.65*N and 0.6*C = Pu*0.35*N

After a bit of algebra, Pu / Pv = (0.6 / 0.35) / (0.4 / 0.65) = 2.8.

So unvaccinated people are about 3 times more likely to catch Covid than vaccinated people.

Of course this calculation assumes that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are equally exposed, while some of the protection of vaccinated people may be due to the fact that they are more careful and less exposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Klaralven (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 09:46 AM

42. MA is interesting because with such a large number of vaccinated persons...

and such a relatively small number of breakthrough cases other confounding considerations enter the equation which are related to vaccinations, rather than the efficacy of the vaccines themselves.

Setting aside co-morbidities, there are also a small number of vaccination misfires to account for. Where someone thinks they have established immunity, but, for some reason, haven't. This is one way the two doses required for the mRNA is good. It reduces the likelihood of misfires considerably. One of those shots is going to take. This is also why in my humble opinion a booster should have been planned all along while the virus is in the massive circulation stage.

No system is perfect and successfully vaccinating someone is no exception. It is a complex process and the overall rate of success would seem to be a damn miracle all things considered.

Thanks for doing the probability math on the vaxx'ed vs unvaxx'ed rates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugin (Reply #42)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 09:58 AM

43. I couldn't find data on hospitalization and death rates, but those numbers are more favorable

to vaccination based on other articles that affirm that vaccination is more effective at preventing hospitalization and death than catching a case of Covid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Klaralven (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 26, 2021, 12:27 PM

54. Yay! One of the few that seems to get basic math!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread