Post by Velar Fricative on Sept 7, 2021 6:37:40 GMT -5
Data about prevalence of breakthrough infections - may be about 1 in 5,000. I know we have posters here with breakthrough infections and I know I wouldn’t be heartened by these numbers necessarily if I’m that 1 person, but still helpful to put in perspective.
Thanks! I have been that statistic with a different health matter and it sucks, but now that I'm ~2 decades out it is comforting to know when risks are rare.
The WaPo chart on US COVID cases that I check daily finally has a drop in numbers. The rate of increase dropped a couple of weeks ago but there's something nice about seeing an actual drop, even if it's just because of reduced testing or reporting over the holiday. Still, I'm hopeful that this surge will follow similar trends of the last two and will start to decline again soon.
I was just coming in to post the same article lol!
I really appreciated this article. It gathered a whole bunch of sources I have seen in different places, but then summed it all up nicely. Especially the breakdown of what it is like in highly vaccinated areas. Probably more like 1 in 10,000.
I have been pretty vocal about how frustrated I have been with messaging around the effectiveness of the vaccine. I felt like we have shot ourselves in the foot. Vaccinated people have become scared again and unvaccinated people think it isn't worth it. I hope more and more of these type of articles come out so we can get back to more reasonable messaging.
Data about prevalence of breakthrough infections - may be about 1 in 5,000. I know we have posters here with breakthrough infections and I know I wouldn’t be heartened by these numbers necessarily if I’m that 1 person, but still helpful to put in perspective.
Phrasing it as "one in 5000" isn't a terribly useful way to understand it and is both irresponsible and misleading on the part of the NYTimes.
That number - "1 in 5,000" - is the chance you will contract a breakthrough infection on any given day. "chances you will contract coronavirus specifically today" isn't a stat most people know and varies wildly by location.
What they are really saying is that you have about one tenth the chance of getting a breakthrough infection v. an unvaccinated infection. But you have to read through to get that info.
Our local health department does a much better job - it posts the daily case rate for vaccinated and the daily case rate for unvaccinated. Right now, our "daily chance of testing positive for corona virus" (what the nytimes article is looking at) is actually more like 1 in 2,000 for the unvaccinated and 1 in 30,000 for the vaccinated (quick rounded valuations from the more helpful data they actually provide). At the height of the summer infection locally, it was more like 1 in 1,000 v. 1 in 12,000.
Data about prevalence of breakthrough infections - may be about 1 in 5,000. I know we have posters here with breakthrough infections and I know I wouldn’t be heartened by these numbers necessarily if I’m that 1 person, but still helpful to put in perspective.
That's actually NOT that low. 1 in 5,000 per day is the same as 20 in 100,000. In comparison, my state is overall at only about 50 new cases per 100,000 per day, and that's enough to overwhelm our hospitals. I know my own personal risk of needing hospitalization is low as a vaccinated person, but my risk of infecting someone who cannot be vaccinated or for whom the vaccine didn't work, is not actually reduced all that much. Also, multiplying that risk by the ~200 days on average that folks have been vaccinated, and 1 in 5000 per day becomes 1 in 25 so far. So it's not surprising we've seen so many posters posting about breakthrough cases so far. If COVID keeps circulating at the levels it is, we will all be getting breakthrough cases sooner or later. (This may take years, but it may happen much sooner if COVID cases keep growing exponentially.)
The county that contains Seattle has been posting rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Currently the rate for unvaccinated is 90 per 100k, while vaccinated is 9 per 100k, with an overall rate of 26 per 100k. Good numbers but not as big of a reduction as I had personally hoped for. Luckily it seems to be trending down for the vaccinated as folks return to other controls.
The county that contains Seattle has been posting rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Currently the rate for unvaccinated is 90 per 100k, while vaccinated is 9 per 100k, with an overall rate of 26 per 100k. Good numbers but not as big of a reduction as I had personally hoped for. Luckily it seems to be trending down for the vaccinated as folks return to other controls.
This is neat! I've been wondering about whether unvaccinated people who previously had covid are impacting these numbers as well. If none of the unvaccinated people had covid before, would their numbers be higher and therefore the numbers for vaccinated people would look better?
The county that contains Seattle has been posting rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Currently the rate for unvaccinated is 90 per 100k, while vaccinated is 9 per 100k, with an overall rate of 26 per 100k. Good numbers but not as big of a reduction as I had personally hoped for. Luckily it seems to be trending down for the vaccinated as folks return to other controls.
This is neat! I've been wondering about whether unvaccinated people who previously had covid are impacting these numbers as well. If none of the unvaccinated people had covid before, would their numbers be higher and therefore the numbers for vaccinated people would look better?
Are you speculating that some of the unvaccinated have immunity from previous infection? That would be interesting to know. It would be interesting for both groups. Are those previously infected equally, more or less likely to get breakthrough cases?
Anecdote alert: My BIL and SIL live in FL didn't want to get vaccinated for silly political reasons and because they both had COVID over a year ago. Well my BIL finally caved and got vaccinated and then pushed my SIL in getting it too. I'm shocked.
The breakthrough infection is encouraging, but it's still disheartening when you hear about whole families getting COVID when there are a mix of vacced and unvacced. It doesn't seem to make sense that everyone would get it in a family.
This is neat! I've been wondering about whether unvaccinated people who previously had covid are impacting these numbers as well. If none of the unvaccinated people had covid before, would their numbers be higher and therefore the numbers for vaccinated people would look better?
Are you speculating that some of the unvaccinated have immunity from previous infection? That would be interesting to know. It would be interesting for both groups. Are those previously infected equally, more or less likely to get breakthrough cases?
I'm not speculating - there is some level of post-infection immunity per the CDC, we just don't know for how long beyond ~90 days, what levels of antibodies help with immunity, etc. So the unvaccinated people in the numbers at the link could be recently-recovered people, for example. That's where my mind was going with this.
In addition, what *is* speculated with some limited evidence so far from what I've seen is that hybrid immunity (previous infection plus at least one dose of a vaccine) may be most protective. I was searching for where I read this but found this article published this morning as well:
Of course, the problem is that it's a bad idea to tell everyone to go get infected without being vaccinated. And the piece above mentions that this applied to only "some" individuals who recovered from covid - others may not mount strong antibody levels. But I know other countries like Israel have allow their vaccine passports to be used by recently-recovered people too, so they must have found some evidence of post-infection immunity there and in other countries too.
Anecdote alert: My BIL and SIL live in FL didn't want to get vaccinated for silly political reasons and because they both had COVID over a year ago. Well my BIL finally caved and got vaccinated and then pushed my SIL in getting it too. I'm shocked.
The breakthrough infection is encouraging, but it's still disheartening when you hear about whole families getting COVID when there are a mix of vacced and unvacced. It doesn't seem to make sense that everyone would get it in a family.
I think about this too. It seems like once Delta hits one member of a household, it so often infects everyone else in the house too regardless of vaccination status. Maybe it's because the viral load is higher in homes in general since everyone's around each other so much and not maintaining distance generally-speaking?
Are you speculating that some of the unvaccinated have immunity from previous infection? That would be interesting to know. It would be interesting for both groups. Are those previously infected equally, more or less likely to get breakthrough cases?
I'm not speculating - there is some level of post-infection immunity per the CDC, we just don't know for how long beyond ~90 days, what levels of antibodies help with immunity, etc. So the unvaccinated people in the numbers at the link could be recently-recovered people, for example. That's where my mind was going with this.
In addition, what *is* speculated with some limited evidence so far from what I've seen is that hybrid immunity (previous infection plus at least one dose of a vaccine) may be most protective. I was searching for where I read this but found this article published this morning as well:
Of course, the problem is that it's a bad idea to tell everyone to go get infected without being vaccinated. And the piece above mentions that this applied to only "some" individuals who recovered from covid - others may not mount strong antibody levels. But I know other countries like Israel have allow their vaccine passports to be used by recently-recovered people too, so they must have found some evidence of post-infection immunity there and in other countries too.
I shouldn't have used the word "speculating"
It would be interesting to know what level of immunity previous infection provides for delta - in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. It may not be skewing the statistics at all given that both groups include those with previous infections. As you point out the layering of "natural" immunity and vaccine may be most protective for future infection. So it may actually be making the vaccinated stats look better than they are (since the more robust numbers may not reflect vaccine alone, but rather hybrid immunity). or, It may be making the unvaccinated stats look comparatively better.
I think about this too. It seems like once Delta hits one member of a household, it so often infects everyone else in the house too regardless of vaccination status. Maybe it's because the viral load is higher in homes in general since everyone's around each other so much and not maintaining distance generally-speaking?
This is completely anecdotal, but I know at least 20 people who had breakthrough cases and managed to contain it to one family member. They took precautions once they knew.
Post by MeMyselfandI on Sept 7, 2021 13:04:15 GMT -5
I just found out we lost a coworker to covid this morning. He wasn't vaccinated. I'm so very sad and so damn angry. He was such a kind soul and he's gone, for what? He was in ICU for the last several weeks, intubated, with chest tubes because his lungs were collapsing. His last days were torture. I wish people would take this seriously. I'm just heartbroken.
Data about prevalence of breakthrough infections - may be about 1 in 5,000. I know we have posters here with breakthrough infections and I know I wouldn’t be heartened by these numbers necessarily if I’m that 1 person, but still helpful to put in perspective.
That's actually NOT that low. 1 in 5,000 per day is the same as 20 in 100,000. In comparison, my state is overall at only about 50 new cases per 100,000 per day, and that's enough to overwhelm our hospitals. I know my own personal risk of needing hospitalization is low as a vaccinated person, but my risk of infecting someone who cannot be vaccinated or for whom the vaccine didn't work, is not actually reduced all that much. Also, multiplying that risk by the ~200 days on average that folks have been vaccinated, and 1 in 5000 per day becomes 1 in 25 so far. So it's not surprising we've seen so many posters posting about breakthrough cases so far. If COVID keeps circulating at the levels it is, we will all be getting breakthrough cases sooner or later. (This may take years, but it may happen much sooner if COVID cases keep growing exponentially.)
Where do you get this number? I see that 200*(1/5000) = 2/50 = 1/25, but the probability is more complicated that that. (If it were that simple, then everyone would be guaranteed to get it in 5000 days and you'd have a greater than 100% probability in 5001 days, which isn't possible.)
ETA based on my memory of prob/stats I think it's not particularly different for this example - 3.9% instead of 4% - but it becomes a bigger difference over longer time frames. I'm legitimately trying to inquire about your mathematical model, not challenging your overall point.
That's actually NOT that low. 1 in 5,000 per day is the same as 20 in 100,000. In comparison, my state is overall at only about 50 new cases per 100,000 per day, and that's enough to overwhelm our hospitals. I know my own personal risk of needing hospitalization is low as a vaccinated person, but my risk of infecting someone who cannot be vaccinated or for whom the vaccine didn't work, is not actually reduced all that much. Also, multiplying that risk by the ~200 days on average that folks have been vaccinated, and 1 in 5000 per day becomes 1 in 25 so far. So it's not surprising we've seen so many posters posting about breakthrough cases so far. If COVID keeps circulating at the levels it is, we will all be getting breakthrough cases sooner or later. (This may take years, but it may happen much sooner if COVID cases keep growing exponentially.)
Where do you get this number? I see that 200*(1/5000) = 2/50 = 1/25, but theprobability is more complicated that that. (If it were that simple, then everyone would be guaranteed to get it in 5000 days and you'd have a greater than 100% probability in 5001 days, which isn't possible.)
Yes.
Which is why a "chance per day" stat bothers me as a headline used to grab the attention of causal readers. Absent context, it just isn't that informative nor naturally intuitive for many people scanning their morning papers.
Where do you get this number? I see that 200*(1/5000) = 2/50 = 1/25, but theprobability is more complicated that that. (If it were that simple, then everyone would be guaranteed to get it in 5000 days and you'd have a greater than 100% probability in 5001 days, which isn't possible.)
Yes. Which is why a "chance per day" stat bothers me as a headline used to grab the attention of causal readers. Absent context, it just isn't that informative nor naturally intuitive for many people scanning their morning papers.
Yes - a statistic on chance per month or year would be easier for us to understand...as well as helping me check my memory of probability class!
Yes. Which is why a "chance per day" stat bothers me as a headline used to grab the attention of causal readers. Absent context, it just isn't that informative nor naturally intuitive for many people scanning their morning papers.
Yes - a statistic on chance per month or year would be easier for us to understand...as well as helping me check my memory of probability class!
They looked at cases in only three places: Utah, Virgina and Kings County, Washington, over a single month, and came out with that weird statistic. They could have chosen many better things to calculate and come up with something much more useful. It was a missed opportunity not to calculate out that the risk of infection seems to be about 1/10 with vaccine v. without (or whatever the true calculation is). That is useful, should encourage vaccines, and doesn't beget complacency on the part of the vaccinated like the 1 in 5000 stat might.
I've noticed that even the NYTimes has changed the label for the article on its internet front page.
Andy Slavitt has an interesting Twitter thread today on possibly more damaging mutations. My non-scientific synthesis is that mutations can be bad by either spreading more easily or being more deadly (or both), and that Delta (by spreading more easily) might actually be helping prevent more deadly variants from emerging by dominating transmission/cases.
If you're curious, he does a better job explaining it here:
For anyone getting booster, please update with VSAFE. I went in today and had to signup again, because I couldn’t figure out how else to get in. But then it found me and I could indicate I got a third shot. Unfortunately, I didn’t see the reminder to do this before I got my third shot, and my side effects were the first 36 hours. So, reporting 5 days later may not help. But… one of my MD Twitter follows mentioned they aren’t getting much data on the third because it’s such a limited population.
That's actually NOT that low. 1 in 5,000 per day is the same as 20 in 100,000. In comparison, my state is overall at only about 50 new cases per 100,000 per day, and that's enough to overwhelm our hospitals. I know my own personal risk of needing hospitalization is low as a vaccinated person, but my risk of infecting someone who cannot be vaccinated or for whom the vaccine didn't work, is not actually reduced all that much. Also, multiplying that risk by the ~200 days on average that folks have been vaccinated, and 1 in 5000 per day becomes 1 in 25 so far. So it's not surprising we've seen so many posters posting about breakthrough cases so far. If COVID keeps circulating at the levels it is, we will all be getting breakthrough cases sooner or later. (This may take years, but it may happen much sooner if COVID cases keep growing exponentially.)
Where do you get this number? I see that 200*(1/5000) = 2/50 = 1/25, but the probability is more complicated that that. (If it were that simple, then everyone would be guaranteed to get it in 5000 days and you'd have a greater than 100% probability in 5001 days, which isn't possible.)
ETA based on my memory of prob/stats I think it's not particularly different for this example - 3.9% instead of 4% - but it becomes a bigger difference over longer time frames. I'm legitimately trying to inquire about your mathematical model, not challenging your overall point.
I concur (check my user name).
The chance per month (30 days) would be the complement of NOT being infected 30 days in a row. This employs the multiplication rule: (4999/5000)^30=.994. So, chances per month of infection=.006.
aurora , I had no idea that some anti-vaxxers were accusing the vaccines of causing variants. Wow.
Oooooooohhhh yes. I've seen this on social media a lot. It's vaccinated people who are causing the variants, and they're also the only ones getting sick. Seriously.
These stats are making me feel better because IRL I know eight vaccinated people who currently have covid, and I don’t know that many people that well to know their current health status. I have to remind myself that 99% of the people I know are vaccinated, so it stands to reason that I would know more vaccinated people with covid than unvaccinated. And none are in the hospital!
About six of these people were among our top 10 most covid-cautious friends, so to hear that caution plus vaccine wasn’t enough to stop it makes it feel pretty inevitable that we’ll have it soon too.
aurora , I had no idea that some anti-vaxxers were accusing the vaccines of causing variants. Wow.
Oooooooohhhh yes. I've seen this on social media a lot. It's vaccinated people who are causing the variants, and they're also the only ones getting sick. Seriously.
I see it all the time on comments. And if I click on the persons name their profiles all look the same - some sort of American flag somewhere, along with a mention of trusting Jesus and voting for Trump. I am aware that this is not the case 100% of the time but it certainly feels like it on social media (with the random oil loving healthy living type thrown in)
Oooooooohhhh yes. I've seen this on social media a lot. It's vaccinated people who are causing the variants, and they're also the only ones getting sick. Seriously.
I see it all the time on comments. And if I click on the persons name their profiles all look the same - some sort of American flag somewhere, along with a mention of trusting Jesus and voting for Trump. I am aware that this is not the case 100% of the time but it certainly feels like it on social media (with the random oil loving healthy living type thrown in)
YESSSSSS. It's so true. Telltale sign of a cult if I ever saw one.