0.03% chance: Getting coronavirus after being vaccinated.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

0.03% chance: Getting coronavirus after being vaccinated incredibly rare in L.A. County
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-21/breakthrough-coronavirus-infections-of-vaccinated-people-exceedingly-rare-in-l-a-county

... Of the 3.3 million L.A. County residents fully vaccinated as of May 7, only 933 — or 0.03% — later tested positive for the coronavirus, including people who showed no symptoms but were tested anyway because of workplace requirements, Ferrer said.

Furthermore, only 71 fully vaccinated residents, or 0.002%, were later hospitalized with so-called breakthrough infections. Twelve residents, or 0.00036% of fully vaccinated people, died.

Of the 12 who died, four had severely weakened immune systems, according to the analysis. In such people, vaccinations may not produce the kind of immune system response needed to adequately protect against COVID-19, experts say...

We're some damn lucky to have these vaccines! More people should embrace their privilege in this country and get them!

[Yavin4]

1. I walked past two vaccination spots here in NYC and both were empty.

One spot was directly above a subway station which has an escalator and an elevator. You could walk into either spot and get vaccinated.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

5. New Yorkers need mobile units with vaccinations...

... administered while they quickly walk somewhere, like from nurses riding on electric scooters.

Kidding!

That's actually pretty depressing to read, especially in NYC.

[beaglelover]

2. I'll take those odds!!

[GulfCoast66]

3. Right! If those odds scared me I would never drive again.

[Initech]

4. Great news! Hooray science!

[Yavin4]

8. Indeed. I'm frustrated with the passive push by our government to get people vaccinated.

We have the best tool for destroying this virus outright, but we are reluctant to really use it.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

12. Heck, you'd think the evangelical Christian loons...

... would want to emulate Israel about it. They're more vaccinated than us and have extremely low new case rates now.

[MichMan]

20. Yet, federal, state, and local governments refuse to require it of all employees

in order to remain employed

[Ms. Toad]

6. That assumes that none of those vaccinated will ever get COVID.

Yes, the vaccines are remarkably effective, but dividing those who have gotten sick divided by the number vaccinated (whether a week ago or 4 months ago) is not how you calculate the chance of getting COVID, because it disregards the future cases in those same people.

(Not to mention that those numbers were gathered while there were numerous effective disease preventions - in addition to vaccinations - in effect.)

[Yavin4]

7. Pre-vaccine, you calculated the probability of getting covid by looking at the infection rate at the

time, not at some point in the future. They are doing that right here.

Not to mention that those numbers were gathered while there were numerous effective disease preventions - in addition to vaccinations - in effect.

Those same measures were in place when CA was seeing their highest spikes back in January. The reason why they're seeing these low numbers now is all due to the vaccines.

[Ms. Toad]

25. The manner of calculation is misleading

The vaccine effectiveness (95%) was arrived at by comparing # of cases of COVID 19 among vaccinated individuals to # of cases among unvaccinated (in the same population, at the same time). In other words it is comparing a control group of similarly sitauated unvaccinated people to the vaccinated group all experiencing the same exposures over the same period of time. Under those circumstances, out of every 100 unvaccinated people who came down with COVID, only 5 vaccinated people did.

What 95% represents is your decreased likelihood of getting the disease when exposed to the same circumstances as someone who was unvaccinated.

The figure in this article is an isolated calculation comparing absolute numbers (not in comparison to a control group) over a period of time that varies by individual, arrived at during a period when mitigation measures were in place.

To make the point - the Pfizer trial numbers suggest being unvaccinated is remarkably effective! Only 162/22,000 unvaccinated people got COVID) - that's a .7% chance of getting infected!!!.

But if that is accurate - if each person only has a .7% chance of getting infected - how did we get to 10.3% of the US population (33,863,409/328,200,000) having been infected with COVID? If my "chance of getting COVID is .7%, there should only have been 2,297,400 cases - ever - in the US. There were 14 times as many a predicted! How can that be???

The explanation: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

The explanation is that whoever wrote that you had a .03% chance of gettign vaccinated didn't understand the statistics (The article is behind a paywall, so I don't know whether that description was part of the article or not). .03% isn't measuring your chances of getting COVID, as a vaccinated person. It is a measure of the portion of the population at a particular point in time, under the circumstances that existed at that time, with varying vaccination duration, who were actually infected during that time period. Without more data (comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated, adjusting for those vaccinated a month v. those vaccinated for 3 months (and exposed to far more COVID-causing events), adjusting for mitigation measures in place) it says very little about your chances of getting COVID.

That is not to say the vaccinations are not remarkably effective. BUT it is misleading to say you have a .03% chance of getting COVID. More accurately, the number itself would be adjusted for the varying periods of time people were vaccinated (and subsequently exposed) and the infection rate in the communities in which they lived and worked, and what mitigation efforts were in place (and likely other factors I am not thingking of).

And AFTER adjustment it would be described more like this: You have a .XX% chance of becoming infected with COVID over an XX month period of time if you are vaccinated, and live in a community with an average 2-week infection rate of XXX/100,000 infection, in which the following mitigation efforts {XXX, XXX, XXX} are in place.

So - .03% chance of getting COVID is a statistical lie.

[Yavin4]

28. The quote never states what your probability of getting covid was.

Here's the statement:

Of the 3.3 million L.A. County residents fully vaccinated as of May 7, only 933 — or 0.03% — later tested positive for the coronavirus

Which is just a measurement of the infected rate among the vaccinated.

It never said what you wrote:

BUT it is misleading to say you have a .03% chance of getting COVID.

The data backs up the science that the vaccinated are not only better protected but they do not spread the virus as well.

[Ms. Toad]

29. Copied and pasted from the OP:

0.03% chance: Getting coronavirus after being vaccinated incredibly rare in L.A. County

It may be the headline writer is to blame - but since the article is behind the paywall, it isn't clear whether the article said it or the headline writer misinterpreted the data or the article.

But - it's not even a measurement of the infected rate among the vaccinated. Re-read my post as to the detail needed to describe what it actually is.

I have not ever said anything that would counter your last sentence.

BUT - we do need to be concerned about community risk, at least as long as there are people in our communities who are prohibited from getting vaccinated. AND - if the community risk is high, there will be more breakthrough cases, driving up the "chance" vaccinated people will be infectd with COVID (using the measurement criteria used in this article).

[Buckeye_Democrat]

9. Yeah, a better idea of the distribution over time...

... is needed to get a better grasp of the odds.

And it's probably not a statistical curve like for incandescent lightbulbs with high failure near the beginning, which then sharply decreases until the failure rates slowly increase again later.

It seems more likely that it will be a worsening situation as time passes, period, unless environmental conditions improve for the vaccinated individual such as lower exposure as more people get vaccinated.

Nonetheless, these mRNA vaccines have performed better than what many people expected from any vaccines last year!

I strongly suspect that many more of them actually got infected too, but never got tested because the symptoms were so mild or non-existent.

[Ms. Toad]

23. One of my criteria for getting a vaccine was that it outperform the flu vaccines

(which largely, at least in recent years, max out somewhere south of 50%). 95% effective makes me a lot more willing to be a guinea pig when the only significant question is as to long-term harm.

I'm most concerned about when the weather starts to cool off again - and unmasked unvaccinated people come back inside (and return to school). I expect a surge when weather cools down, unless vaccination dramatically increases - and I expect a parallel surge among vaccinated people. The peak won't be as high as among the unvaccinated, but the numbers will increase because the number of exposures will increase (so the shape of the breakthrough curve will look the same as the shape of the unvaccinated curve - just lower numbers overall).

As to your last point - probably also accurate. That's why the vaccine were initially advertised as being effective at preventing severe disease and death - they just never tested for infections unless symptoms were present.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

24. Yes, I agree.

The warmer weather has surely been a big help too across the country, not just the vaccines.

The vaccination numbers really need to keep increasing, hopefully to something like herd-immunity by the Fall.

I remember you posting about wanting new cases to drop below 50 per 100k people over a two-week period, like was recommended by the Ohio Dept. of Health before we eased restrictions, but that policy was scrapped by Ohio soon after the CDC announcement on May 13th (which was individual-focused and probably not the best idea for the general welfare).

We seem to be slowly getting there, regardless. I'm sure hoping for the best.

Coronavirus in Ohio: 50-per-100k rate drops below 100 for first time in nearly a year
https://fox8.com/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-in-ohio-50-per-100k-rate-drops-below-100-for-first-time-in-nearly-a-year/

COLUMBUS (WCMH) – Ohio’s rate of onset cases of coronavirus per 100,000 over two weeks hit a major benchmark this week, dropping below 100 for the first time since June 28, 2020.

Gov. Mike DeWine had set state COVID-19 orders to lift once Ohio hits 50 per 100,000, but last week he scheduled most orders to expire on June 2. His administration, though, continues to closely track the metric, as it is commonly used to observe the virus’s spread.

The rate stands at 99 per 100,000 as of Wednesday, May 19. It was 124 when NBC4 ran this preliminary calculation last week. Five weeks ago, it was nearly double: 201 per 100,000.

[Ms. Toad]

26. I've been watching the rates dropping

and crossing my fingers.

My county is still red, so it is nowhere near safe yet.

But - on a positive note - I went shopping to my "go-to" store yesterday and every single person was masked (unlike my shopping trip last week after the CDC announcement). So - maybe there is hope yet.

[MichMan]

10. People that have been vaccinated shouldn't have to wear a mask anywhere. Period

[Buckeye_Democrat]

11. Maybe those infected people were also wearing masks?

And it would be worse otherwise?

I'll trust the CDC with the recent guidance about it, though.

And if any vaccinated people still want to wear masks, that's even better as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: Especially since Covid-19 isn't the only infectious disease out there.

[MichMan]

13. Vaccinated and wearing masks, yet still caught it?

[Buckeye_Democrat]

14. Sure, since neither measure is 100% effective.

Both measures improve the odds, though, with the vaccines much more so!

Bottom line, many more people need to get vaccinated. If anyone chooses to wear a mask too, that's no skin off my nose.

[MichMan]

15. 99.97 % Close enough for me

[SoCalDavidS]

17. AMERICA!

People shouldn't have to wear a mask anywhere. Period.

That's where we are with this Bullshit "Honor" system.

I dare you to find an American that has "Honor."

[madville]

18. Eventually the mask becomes a comfort object for many

Like a security blanket, it’s going to be hard for many to not use one anymore even if the threat is negligible

[Ms. Toad]

27. So how do you propose that we ensure it is ONLY vaccinated people

who aren't wearing masks?

I'm find with checking vaccine cards at the door to indoor spaces, and issuing wrist bands so they can't just cheat and take off the masks once they are inside the door. BUT indoor spaces have balked even at the simple task of simply uniformly enforcing the mask order against everyone. I doubt anyone is going to be willing to enforce a selective order.

And until everyone is permitted to be vaccinated, at a bare minimum, we need to protect those who can't protect themselves . It stretches the realm of what is believable to think that suddenly all those people refusing to wear masks will all of a sudden voluntarily put them on.

[mucifer]

19. Another stat: In Illinois 1.07% of covid deaths were fully vaxxed since January 1st

This is an Illinois public health number.

https://www.dph.illinois.gov/covid19/vaccinedata?county=Illinois

scroll down to see Covid 19 vaccine breakthrough.

I wonder as people gather more without masks if the breakthrough hospitalizations and deaths will increase a lot.

[tanyev]

21. Yep, Dallas County has reported 506 breakthrough cases, 82 hospitalizations and 7 deaths.

Big picture: The vaccines are helping tremendously.

Little picture: I'm vaccinated, but I'm still wearing a mask.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

22. Thank you for another perspective.

Everyone should also bear in mind that we have a percentage of immunosuppressed people in this country of about 2% to 3%, and the vaccines surely won't work as well for them.

For their sake and others, I personally wish mask mandates hadn't been lifted quite yet. Regardless, I hope that nearly every immunocompromised person is aware of their situation and will be very cautious.

The Prevalence of Immunocompromised Adults: United States, 2013
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/3/suppl_1/1439/2635779
Results. Of 34,426 respondents, 4.2% (1442) had been told at some time by a health professional that they were IC. Of these, 2.8% (n = 951) reported they were currently IC, translating to a prevalence of 2.7 (2.4, 2.9). In sensitivity analyses, prevalence ranged from 1.8% (95% CI: 1.6, 2.0) to 3.1% (95% CI: 2.9, 3.3).