@phoenix ugh.. I mean i dont think the vaccines are needed with delta pretty much making them useless. But since they post virtually 0 risk I see no reason not to, just in case the latest data is wrong.

@selea

The data on anything related to COVID is too new to ever make any real absolute assertions. But yea recent data suggests the patterns we thought we saw suggesting limited protection were post hoc procter hoc and in fact the viral load of people who are vaccinated is exactly the same with delta as unavaccinated.

@phoenix

@freemo @selea @phoenix The swiss scientific Covid task force just announced that, according to their data, the vaccine *does* hinder transmission. By 95% just after the vaccination, going down to 66% 6 months later. The main reason they gave was that vaccinated people are less likely to contract the virus if exposed to it.

Caveat: This is specific to Biontech and Moderna.

@p2501
I care less about what conclusion any group concludes, considering the pressure for bias, and more with how they determined it. Did they show viral load or make assumptions vulnerable to the previously mentioned fallacy?
@selea @phoenix

@freemo @selea @phoenix As I said, the main reason given was that vaccinated people are less likely to contract the virus in the first place. Viral load is not the only factor in play.

Follow

@p2501
Giving a reason and proving the reason are two very different things. Without seeing their data and how they concluded it to determine if it suffers from the early fallacy it doesnt mean much to me.
@selea @phoenix

@freemo @selea @phoenix The study has been reviewed, but not yet publicised, so I can't help you there. I trust that you'll read it carefully and unbiased once it's available in full.

I should point out, though, that reality seems to agree: Infection numbers in Switzerland are rising considerably slower than last year in spite of Delta and in spite of the countermeasures being milder. Hospitalisations even (much) more so.

@p2501
The problem with that inference is that you could just as easily explain it as people having built natural immunity to delta via previous infections (even asymptomatic ones). This is why direct evidence (like viral loads) trumps any evidence based off of patterns in the population

And yes since i suggest people get vaccinated and at the same time am saying that the vaccine appears useless against delta, this would suggest i am approaching it in an unbias way
@selea @phoenix

@freemo @selea @phoenix Unlikely. According to several antibody studies, not nearly enough people got in contact with the actual virus to explain the slow down.

Also: The incidence numbers are much higher among unvaccinated than among vaccinated.

Yes, I know it sounds circumstantial. But medicine isn't an exact science. That's not meant as an insult. That's just a fact.

@p2501

I explained earlier why the higher incidence among unvaccinated is a post hoc procter hoc fallacy

@selea @phoenix

@freemo @selea @phoenix Yes, as I said, it's just circumstantial evidence. Like most things in medicine.

For instance: There is so far no definite evidence that higher viral load leads to higher infectiousness. 😉 It likely does, though.

Well, anyway, I think this went on for long enough. Agree to disagree?

@p2501
Yes, but there are some things that are direct measures like viral load. Thus why i am relying on what few direct measures we have to draw conclusions and avoid fallacy
@selea @phoenix

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.