In a country-level analysis, variation in vaccine uptake was related to the number of new cases, but not in the way you would expect if vaccines prevent transmission and reduce symptoms.
And could we also check which vaccine were used in each of these contries? Different kind or brand of vaccines may also be influencing the data we're observing here?
The simplest, most obvious and most logical explanation would be that vaccinated people are (generally): 1) NOT tested when travelling, 2) NOT tested when entering public buildings or events, 3) do NOT show as many symptoms and are therefore less likely to isolate. The above combination makes them superspreaders...
If vaccines work, there are all kinds of reasons why we'd see this pattern in comparing countries. The main one is the confounder of wealth and development: those countries that can't afford to vaccinate, are also bad at reporting new COVID cases.
One should compare countries with trepidation because of the huge number of such confounders due to the huge differences in the way people live across the planet. But let us stick with one country: if you compare the 50 US states, and the counties within the states, do you get the same positive correlation of vaccination fraction and cases? NO. You now get NO correlation at all.
And now we ask opposite question: if the vaccine is responsible for some harm that shows in transmission, how could it be that way? All epidemiologists know that lack of correlation is a better signal that correlation, since to be wrong it requires two confounders operating perfectly against each other (rare), which is to say that any strong causal influence is very hard to hide. For example one cannot image no correlation between smoking in counties in the US and lung cancer rates-- it's inconceivable (and of course does not happen).
I want to see death stats vs. vaccination. adjusted for age and culture. I note that the vaccine raises IgG, the antibody which keeps the virus out of your blood. It doesn't raise IgA, the antibody made in secretions and is most effective against early infection and transmission. The vaccine trials showed most effectiveness against SEVERE disease (hospitalization) not "case rate" or transmission. They are rather weaker there, and (to a large extent) that isn't their "job." If they slow transmission a bit by shortening duration of illness, that's just icing on the cake. The point is to keep you out of the hospital and cemetary. We have a huge amount of data at the granular person-by-person level in single states to show that the vaccines DO that.
I have looked at data for European countries including Sweden - trends are very seasonal. Also.looked at death rates as proportion cases- after initial hump are steadily declining on a trajectory started before vaccinations. I.e. vaccination does not seem to affect rate of mortality in the countries I have studied.
i didn't read your whole article but aren't these vaccines tested and determined to be safe and effective ?? maybe i'm naive but vaccines seem to be the best first line defense against a highly contagious virus that has killed 5 million people / in plain language what is your alternative to vaccinating people ??
Just curious: Is there a marked difference in seasonality?
And could we also check which vaccine were used in each of these contries? Different kind or brand of vaccines may also be influencing the data we're observing here?
The simplest, most obvious and most logical explanation would be that vaccinated people are (generally): 1) NOT tested when travelling, 2) NOT tested when entering public buildings or events, 3) do NOT show as many symptoms and are therefore less likely to isolate. The above combination makes them superspreaders...
If vaccines work, there are all kinds of reasons why we'd see this pattern in comparing countries. The main one is the confounder of wealth and development: those countries that can't afford to vaccinate, are also bad at reporting new COVID cases.
One should compare countries with trepidation because of the huge number of such confounders due to the huge differences in the way people live across the planet. But let us stick with one country: if you compare the 50 US states, and the counties within the states, do you get the same positive correlation of vaccination fraction and cases? NO. You now get NO correlation at all.
And now we ask opposite question: if the vaccine is responsible for some harm that shows in transmission, how could it be that way? All epidemiologists know that lack of correlation is a better signal that correlation, since to be wrong it requires two confounders operating perfectly against each other (rare), which is to say that any strong causal influence is very hard to hide. For example one cannot image no correlation between smoking in counties in the US and lung cancer rates-- it's inconceivable (and of course does not happen).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
I want to see death stats vs. vaccination. adjusted for age and culture. I note that the vaccine raises IgG, the antibody which keeps the virus out of your blood. It doesn't raise IgA, the antibody made in secretions and is most effective against early infection and transmission. The vaccine trials showed most effectiveness against SEVERE disease (hospitalization) not "case rate" or transmission. They are rather weaker there, and (to a large extent) that isn't their "job." If they slow transmission a bit by shortening duration of illness, that's just icing on the cake. The point is to keep you out of the hospital and cemetary. We have a huge amount of data at the granular person-by-person level in single states to show that the vaccines DO that.
https://journals.stfm.org/primer/2021/morley-2021-0035/
I have looked at data for European countries including Sweden - trends are very seasonal. Also.looked at death rates as proportion cases- after initial hump are steadily declining on a trajectory started before vaccinations. I.e. vaccination does not seem to affect rate of mortality in the countries I have studied.
i didn't read your whole article but aren't these vaccines tested and determined to be safe and effective ?? maybe i'm naive but vaccines seem to be the best first line defense against a highly contagious virus that has killed 5 million people / in plain language what is your alternative to vaccinating people ??