Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No vaccine is 100% effective.
It's been established that a chance of reinfection or infection after vaccination may occur.
Minnesota will use these 89 cases to maintain the control over their residents to the extent that they can, and to the extent that Minnesotans allow it.
MN, population 5.6M. About 600,000 people had their 2nd shot more than two weeks ago (not 800K, as in the article). Since Jan. 1st, about 80,000 people have tested positive for COVID (in Minnesota.) Of that 80,000...89 were after the vaccine. The 5M general pop. got 80K cases - while the 600K post-vaccine got 89. (if you "math it out" to the same sample size - 600K without a vaccine - it's 9600 sick. Vs. 89.)
Your analysis is flawed, you can't just 'math it out' as there are too many unknowns and many ways to misapply the numbers. Just one example, taking the total positive cases since Jan 1 and comparing that to vaccinated cases in the same time period doesn't take into account that those 600000 people were not all vaccinated at the same time, it's been a ramp making a direct comparison specious at best.
Before anyone goes off and starts spouting off saying I'm some kind of 'antivaxxer', my comment is not a statement about efficacy, it's about correctly determining efficacy.
Your analysis is flawed, you can't just 'math it out' as there are too many unknowns and many ways to misapply the numbers. Just one example, taking the total positive cases since Jan 1 and comparing that to vaccinated cases in the same time period doesn't take into account that those 600000 people were not all vaccinated at the same time, it's been a ramp making a direct comparison specious at best.
Before anyone goes off and starts spouting off saying I'm some kind of 'antivaxxer', my comment is not a statement about efficacy, it's about correctly determining efficacy.
Actually I think you can “math it out “; that’s what clinical trials do all the time. I realized that my previous post was erroneous; it’s not 99.99% effective. The efficacy compares % of people without vaccine who get sick with % of those with vaccine who get sick. I think Roodd279 got it right.
Actually I think you can “math it out “; that’s what clinical trials do all the time. I realized that my previous post was erroneous; it’s not 99.99% effective. The efficacy compares % of people without vaccine who get sick with % of those with vaccine who get sick. I think Roodd279 got it right.
I'm sorry, but simply saying that "that's what clinical trials do" is a gross generalization that misses the mark.
Let's take an edge case, say that between Jan 1 and Mar 15, 1000 people were vaccinated and that the remaining 590000 were vaccinated after Mar 15. Then that 89 number doesn't look so good. Obviously the distribution isn't that extreme, but it does show that the actual distribution over a time period is a significant variable and to assume the other extreme, that all 600K spontaneously were vaccinated Jan 1 is just as erroneous.
Data points like "efficacy" don't exist in a vacuum, time periods matter, target population during those time periods matter, and seemingly 'good enough' back of the napkin calculations are rough approximations (at best) that have to be put into context.
Again, I'm not attacking the notion that vaccines are beneficial, just let's not bandy about random calculations that may be technically correct in the context in which they are presented as being representative of something that they're not.
Your analysis is flawed, you can't just 'math it out' as there are too many unknowns and many ways to misapply the numbers. Just one example, taking the total positive cases since Jan 1 and comparing that to vaccinated cases in the same time period doesn't take into account that those 600000 people were not all vaccinated at the same time, it's been a ramp making a direct comparison specious at best.
When they were individually vaccinated does not matter. The vaccinated and unvaccinated folks are from a pool with the same exposures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by austinnerd
Let's take an edge case, say that between Jan 1 and Mar 15, 1000 people were vaccinated and that the remaining 590000 were vaccinated after Mar 15. Then that 89 number doesn't look so good. Obviously the distribution isn't that extreme, but it does show that the actual distribution over a time period is a significant variable and to assume the other extreme, that all 600K spontaneously were vaccinated Jan 1 is just as erroneous.
Data points like "efficacy" don't exist in a vacuum, time periods matter, target population during those time periods matter, and seemingly 'good enough' back of the napkin calculations are rough approximations (at best) that have to be put into context.
Again, I'm not attacking the notion that vaccines are beneficial, just let's not bandy about random calculations that may be technically correct in the context in which they are presented as being representative of something that they're not.
Your extremes do not exist, though. The number vaccinated is cumulative. Ultimately the vaccinated and unvaccinated are from a group with the same exposure to the virus over time.
Minnesota will use these 89 cases to maintain the control over their residents to the extent that they can, and to the extent that Minnesotans allow it.
Every single one of you "it's about controlling the people" types will see USA open up more and more from summer into fall until there are no more mask restrictions despite continued low rate of covid infections, then you'll have to figure out something else to be irrationally paranoid about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
