I gave a simple cite and quote. Chis seems to have confused you by quoting different, but not contradictory statistics.
You seemed to have confused your self some more by looking at the Lancet.
Relative risk (RR): if a higher proportion of vaccinated people get covid get covid than unvaccinated, RR becomes bigger than 1.
If RR is bigger than 1 Vaccine Efficacy, (RRR=1-RR) becomes negative.
It's not rocket science.
Lots of younger say that. Then change their minds when old.
Mother nature will sort it out, eventually. Not man. But I won't be around to see it.
Dave Plowman (News) snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> wrote
Lots more use it. Victoria Australia now has a voluntary euthanasia system which hundreds have chosen to use. Very bureaucratic and not easy to use if you aren't in Melbourne and not easy to use due to covid, so presumably plenty keep using the traditional ways of killing themselves too.
In fact its man that is sorting it out right now. NOT ONE country hasn?t seen a massive drop in the birth rate except for those whose birth rate is already right down in the noise.
In fact you have already seen it.
It's not. And as it happens the specialisation in my degree was computational population dynamics - I do have some relevant knowledge.
All the other sources I looked at showed that having the vaccine reduced risk.
Yours is the only one that suggested that people who have been vaccinated are more likely to get COVID.
If you can find other papers I'd be interested to see them. As it stands it looks as though that one is an outlier.
Which is a polite way of saying wrong.
Andy
OK. You're putting your unverified "expertise" against a current project run at one of the top universities in the world.
Initially you post irrelevant stuff about vaccine efficacy, the language is standard between all reports. When you do accept that my claim was backed by this UCL report you say UCL is wrong? Your claim that an outlier is a synonym for wrong is bizarre. You haven't even given evidence to suggest that the actual statistic quoted by UCL is an outlier.
FWIW: the UCL report is giving a *current* estimate of vaccine efficacy, This will differ from initial estimates, such as the one quoted in the Lancet, in at least 3 obvious ways:
1) The strain of Covid is different. 2) Vaccine efficacy decreases with time from vaccination. 3) Behavioural changes. As confidence in the vaccine has grown vaccinated people make less effort at social distancing.I would have thought all this would be immediately obvious to anyone with any expertise in "computational population dynamics". It even has
*dynamic* in the title.
If you don't have any counter references I'll have to assume it's a oneoff. AKA wrong.
Andy
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required