Well the paper seems to be studying it. Not in such broad terms, granted, but nevertheless. They seem to be saying that in one group they found an increased susceptibility to one mutation as against another. In the other group they didn't. And the two groups were vaxxed and unvaxed.
This would seem to clearly indicate that if you got yourself into the first group you'd now have an increased risk of infection (of those particular variants).
"We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination"
"They seem to be saying that in one group they found an increased susceptibility to one mutation as against another. In the other group they didn't. And the two groups were vaxxed and unvaxed."
Correct.
"This would seem to clearly indicate that if you got yourself into the first group you'd now have an increased risk of infection (of those particular variants)."
If group A has a 90% chance of an infection being a variant but amt overall chance of infection of 1% then they have an overall 0.9% chance of catching a variant.
And if group B has a 50% chance of an infection being a variant but an overall chance of infection of 10% then they have a 5% overall chance of catching a variant.
All this study looked at is the odds of an infection being a variant. It does not address the overall odds of infection so there's no way to compare between groups.
"This indicates lower vaccine effectiveness against infection with the Beta, Gamma and Delta variant compared to the Alpha variant. "
Not that I think the study is worth the paper it is written on. They consistently claim a 95% effectiveness.
Without saying what they mean by that.
That's the same misleading stuff the establishment has always put out, I think.
Original Pfizer study claimed 99.96% effectiveness and that was a mighty, herculean attempt at falsification and misdirection which succeeded beyond, I imagine, anyone's wildest dreams.
For the population believes, I think, that vaccines protect them against a virus with 99.86% effectiveness.
Whereas, of course, a natural immune system without any vaccine protects, according to Pfizer's own figures again, to 99.86%.
Hence the 'effectiveness' the vaccine could rightfully claim would be 0.1%, in truth.
Or, to put it another way, we vaccinate 1000 people to save 1.
At best.
In an environment deliberately made hostile to the immune system.
They claimed to have used a different method of calculating which has something to do, to my mind, with 'closing the gap' or the difference between the mortality with the vaccine and that without.
Fairly irrelevant in context. We know all we need to know with the absolute figure.
Anyone and any study that talks in those terms is to my mind deliberately obscurantist and dedicating to misleading people and I have no time for them.
"increased risk of infection for vaxxed. Right or wrong?"
Wrong. That's outside the scope of what the paper is studying.
Well the paper seems to be studying it. Not in such broad terms, granted, but nevertheless. They seem to be saying that in one group they found an increased susceptibility to one mutation as against another. In the other group they didn't. And the two groups were vaxxed and unvaxed.
This would seem to clearly indicate that if you got yourself into the first group you'd now have an increased risk of infection (of those particular variants).
"We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination"
"They seem to be saying that in one group they found an increased susceptibility to one mutation as against another. In the other group they didn't. And the two groups were vaxxed and unvaxed."
Correct.
"This would seem to clearly indicate that if you got yourself into the first group you'd now have an increased risk of infection (of those particular variants)."
Incorrect.
just wasting my time here. wonder why I do it. okay, try this:
in one group you would find you had 'an increased susceptibility to one mutation as against another'
Hence increased risk of that variant.
End of story
"in one group you would find you had 'an increased susceptibility to one mutation as against another' "
Only when compared to OTHER PEOPLE IN THAT GROUP.
"Hence increased risk of that variant."
Not necessarily.
If group A has a 90% chance of an infection being a variant but amt overall chance of infection of 1% then they have an overall 0.9% chance of catching a variant.
And if group B has a 50% chance of an infection being a variant but an overall chance of infection of 10% then they have a 5% overall chance of catching a variant.
All this study looked at is the odds of an infection being a variant. It does not address the overall odds of infection so there's no way to compare between groups.
quote:
"This indicates lower vaccine effectiveness against infection with the Beta, Gamma and Delta variant compared to the Alpha variant. "
Not that I think the study is worth the paper it is written on. They consistently claim a 95% effectiveness.
Without saying what they mean by that.
That's the same misleading stuff the establishment has always put out, I think.
Original Pfizer study claimed 99.96% effectiveness and that was a mighty, herculean attempt at falsification and misdirection which succeeded beyond, I imagine, anyone's wildest dreams.
For the population believes, I think, that vaccines protect them against a virus with 99.86% effectiveness.
Whereas, of course, a natural immune system without any vaccine protects, according to Pfizer's own figures again, to 99.86%.
Hence the 'effectiveness' the vaccine could rightfully claim would be 0.1%, in truth.
Or, to put it another way, we vaccinate 1000 people to save 1.
At best.
In an environment deliberately made hostile to the immune system.
They claimed to have used a different method of calculating which has something to do, to my mind, with 'closing the gap' or the difference between the mortality with the vaccine and that without.
Fairly irrelevant in context. We know all we need to know with the absolute figure.
Anyone and any study that talks in those terms is to my mind deliberately obscurantist and dedicating to misleading people and I have no time for them.