Results 5,426 to 5,450 of 23206
-
05-14-2021, 02:42 PM #5426
-
05-14-2021, 04:29 PM #5427
Your risk of getting COVID is variable dependent on many things.
We don't know your individual absolute risk because that is dependent on so many things like your activities (exposure), community transmission control, community prevalence, variants, etc. Absolute risk varies with all of these and varies over time. But you can look at how an intervention reduces risk relatively across a population otherwise experiencing these same independent variables that drive your absolute risk.
tldr;
Vaccine reduces your relative risk by say 95%... meaning your (absolute) risk of getting COVID after vaccination is only 5% what your (absolute) risk would have been it was without the vaccine.
So let's say your absolute risk of getting COVID over last year was 10% (which is roughly the US cumulative incidence for COVID); a 95% relative risk reduction means your absolute risk would be 0.5% down from 10%.
Note, I didn't read your article other than to note it is a single author pub from a Lithuanian open source that has only been cited once.Originally Posted by blurred
-
05-14-2021, 04:42 PM #5428
-
05-14-2021, 05:05 PM #5429
-
05-14-2021, 07:43 PM #5430
To finish the definition--the absolute risk reduction would be 9.5% (per year presumably). In other words, you vaccinate 100 people to prevent 9.5 of them from getting Covid every year--the difference between 10% infected in the unvaccinated and the 0.5% infected in the vaccinated . (Presumably the chance of the unvaccinated getting covid is going down year by year due to control of the pandemic and immunity from being infected. so it gets complicated if we take it out beyond a year.)
In general terms relative risk reduction compares the risk with treatment to the risk without treatment, relative to each other. Absolute risk reduction compares the relative risk reduction to the total number in the treatment group.
In math terms: relative risk reduction= 1--(cases in treated group/cases in untreated group).
Absolute risk reduction= (cases in untreated group--cases in treated group)/number of people in treated group
Both these statistics assume equal numbers in treated and untreated group.
Relative risk reduction is a reasonable way to look at covid vaccines because the risk of the vaccine is close to negligible. Contrary to what the author of the paper says, you don't need to calculate absolute risk in order to determine efficacy, only to calculate risk vs reward. In the case of something like cancer treatment where the treatment has significant risks, the absolute risk reduction is very important because you need to know that to know if the risk of the treatment is justified. MF, I can explain further if you're interested.Last edited by old goat; 05-14-2021 at 08:07 PM.
-
05-14-2021, 07:57 PM #5431
-
05-14-2021, 08:03 PM #5432Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 31,043
Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know
-
05-14-2021, 09:02 PM #5433lysterine
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 670
For all those vaccine hesitant chuckle-fucks out there, just ask them what's worse? Getting limp-dick syndrome as part of the Covid-long haul symptoms or a vaccine?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-uom051121.php
The study indicates a possible connection to ED for post-covid sufferers. Basically, the toll the disease takes on the blood vessels leads to potential increased risks of ED.
Guess the anti-vaxxers won't be reproducing anymore.
-
05-14-2021, 09:04 PM #5434
-
05-14-2021, 10:17 PM #5435Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Missoula
- Posts
- 412
Remember though that the risk of getting a serious case is orders of magnitude less likely. The vaccine not only lowers your absolute risk of getting a case is the first place it also massively lowers the risk that the case would be serious. So much so that people are having a hard time comparing it accurately to other risks they take every day.
-
05-14-2021, 10:21 PM #5436
-
05-14-2021, 11:36 PM #5437
-
05-15-2021, 03:07 AM #5438
-
05-15-2021, 05:52 AM #5439AF
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Sandy by the front
- Posts
- 2,345
I am fully supportive of everyone getting vaccinated, (had ours back in January) its makes no sense we are only at about 50%.
While it makes for great entertainment to ridicule people who have a different view, call them names, criticize them, say its because they supported Donald Trump etc, how about taking a shot at the NIH seeing as how Dr Fauci this past week said the % of employees vaccinated might be 60%. You would think the scientists would follow the science but apparently not. I don't get it, we have lost (everyone) our collective minds.
Last December an ER nurse checking me into a hospital for a short stay when I asked if she had received the vaccine said "I am not going to take it, it messes with your DNA". Wonder how many people would take Pfizer or Moderna if it was called fairy dust instead of mRNA?
-
05-15-2021, 07:06 AM #5440
I know you know science. But the 95% number, oft repeated, is 95% less likely to get seriously ill or hospitalized.
When the 95% number hit the press, I actually looked into the studies. It’s not 95% against getting covid at all.
Not saying there isn’t value there. Just media ignorance.. . .
-
05-15-2021, 07:25 AM #5441
The vaccine definitely protects against catching COVID. We've already seen in places like San Diego where breakthrough cases for vaccines are less than 0.01%. Making vaccines 99.99% effective in a vaccinated population. Even fewer of the breakthrough cases involved people becoming seriously ill.
Even among health care workers and first responders who have a higher exposure risk, the relative risk of infection is reduced by 90% and the relative risk of getting sick is reduced by 95%.
At the time the media accurately reported the data and said it was unknown whether the risk of transmission was also reduced by the vaccines. We now know mRNA COVID-19 vaccines reduce both asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.
-
05-15-2021, 07:27 AM #5442Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2021
- Posts
- 304
-
05-15-2021, 07:44 AM #5443
-
05-15-2021, 09:29 AM #5444
-
05-15-2021, 09:53 AM #5445
-
05-15-2021, 10:15 AM #5446
Here is the NY Times article that best explains the position shift. It says this was not a political decision and not driven from the White House but rather the most recent science (as mentioned in the posts above). It claims the White House was actually surprised.
Why the C.D.C. Changed Its Advice on Masks https://nyti.ms/3w71agK
I dunno. Mixed feelings. I do think the CDC needs to make its decisions and guidance based on the science. It isn't their job to actually set the policy. That is where our politicians, business leaders, and the American public can step in and drop the ball completely.
-
05-15-2021, 10:34 AM #5447
Huh? 99.99% effective would only be the case if 100% of the non-vaccinated were getting infected. Also, although I haven't been to SD lately I assume that, being California, a lot of people are masking and a lot of things are still restricted, Padres games for example. (Although a lot of teams would be delighted if the could get a ballpark 33% filled covid or no covid.) The CDC is betting the great results of vaccination will hold up as restrictions are eased.
I'm not disagreeing that the vaccines are very effective and that restrictions on vaccinated people should be eased. CDC waited on easing restriction recommendations until vaccines were available for everyone who wants one. That as much as the effectiveness of the vaccines is the reason for the sudden change. (And how sudden? Should the CDC have told people we're going to ease restrictions in 2 weeks, when the data shows it's ok now?*)
In part, the change in the CDC guidelines reflects a change from a medical approach--protect every single person from getting Covid--to an epidemiological approach--prevent transmission of the virus so that case numbers continue to fall. That's a change in approach I'm happy to see. Meanwhile, there is nothing to prevent a risk averse person from wearing a mask.
*People's shock at the change in the CDC guidelines reminds me of a very old joke, the punchline of which is "Mama's on the roof."
https://blog.shackelfordfuneraldirec...re-mamas-roof/
-
05-15-2021, 10:42 AM #5448
-
05-15-2021, 10:47 AM #5449
^ Yep, to summarize the previous discussion: The 95%, or whatever, vaccine efficacy numbers are relative efficacy numbers. Meaning you're 95% less likely to get sick, not that you have a 5% chance of getting sick. The odds of catching COVID or getting sick two weeks after the second shot are a lot lower than 5%.
The term "breakthrough" infection is something of a misnomer. The cases we know about are almost entirely from routine PCR tests. PCR tests are very sensitive but the actual viral loads are incredibly low. There are no known cases of a fully mRNA vaccinated person spreading the virus.
-
05-15-2021, 10:54 AM #5450
Also worth noting that absolute risk means nothing without knowing the time period. Any population can have an absolute risk of 0.01% of anything if you just count up the number in the population, divide by 10,000 and count until you reach that number. Useful if you click your stopwatch while counting, but not so much otherwise.
Bookmarks