Herd Immunity? Only for the vaxxed!

[FakeAndyStuart]

Just check out the tranmission rates between vaxxed and unvaxxed states.

https://covidestim.org

Click on the Rt - transmission rate - that shows how fast infections grow. The higher that number, the worst. North Dakota, Kansas, South Carolina - growing. New York, New Jersey, New England states - lowering.

Get vaxxed. It works.

[Matt]

Just check out the tranmission rates between vaxxed and unvaxxed states.

https://covidestim.org

Click on the Rt - transmission rate - that shows how fast infections grow. The higher that number, the worst. North Dakota, Kansas, South Carolina - growing. New York, New Jersey, New England states - lowering.

Get vaxxed. It works.

Stop sharing facts - some people on here are competing for Darwin awards.

[audiophile]

Fake news? The map shows rural areas have the lowest transmission rates.

[bmw]

There's some fascinating data there that I haven't been able to find elsewhere. Thanks for the link.

Though, the Rt for a few specific states for just a few days doesn't come close to telling the whole story. The most interesting number on that stat page is the % ever infected. I've been wanting to chart out this data but have never been able to find a source (until now). What I want to look at is the % ever infected just before Omicron (say, Dec 01), and compare all 50 states and how much that % has gone up since then (basically, the Omicron wave). That should paint a crystal clear picture as to whether higher pre-existing infection rates in a population have offered protection against Omicron. Would also be interesting to compare that data to vaccination rates.

I will plot this out sometime today. Stay tuned...

[bmw]

Let's start with this. Here is the percentage of the uninfected population that has since become infected since Dec 01, 2021. As an example to demonstrate how the calculation was done, let's say the infection rate of a state was at 60% on Dec 01 and 80% today. This would be calculated as (100 minus 80) divided by (100 minus 60) which is 20/40, or 50%.

Interesting stuff here. I had no idea some of these numbers were this high. In some cases OVER 80% of the people who had dodged Covid prior to Omicron have gotten Covid in just the past 6 weeks.



The other 2 comparisons I want to do are the percentages above vs the raw previously infected percentage (this will give an idea of how much protection broader herd immunity actually gave to the uninfected) as well as the above numbers vs. vaccination rates.

[bmw]

Here's the next one. And this one is very interesting. Here is the percent-of-previously-uninfected-now-infected vs each state's vaccination rate. The finding? No correlation whatsoever (it is about as flat of a line as can be) between a state's vaccination status and the percentage of previously uninfected people who became infected.



Now I find this interesting for several reasons. First, the previously uninfected percentage does not take into account one's vaccination status. So what this complete lack of correlation means is that of all uninfected people, regardless of vaccination status, the same percentage became infected regardless of what percentage of the population was infected. Translation: Vaccination status has no bearing whatsoever on spread rate among the previously uninfected. None. Zilch.

The one glaring omission from the above data is re-infection rates among those who have been previously infected. That brings me to the second thing I find interesting about this data: the fact that there WAS a significant correlation in the NYT daily new case data between higher vaccinated states having higher case rates. If the new cases among the previously uninfected are flat regardless of vaccination status, that would appear to suggest that re-infection rates among the vaccinated must be higher in order to make up the overall higher case rates.

[km1125]

Interesting!! Thanks for pulling that together!

[Matt]

Here's the next one. And this one is very interesting. Here is the percent-of-previously-uninfected-now-infected vs each state's vaccination rate. The finding? No correlation whatsoever (it is about as flat of a line as can be) between a state's vaccination status and the percentage of previously uninfected people who became infected.



Now I find this interesting for several reasons. First, the previously uninfected percentage does not take into account one's vaccination status. So what this complete lack of correlation means is that of all uninfected people, regardless of vaccination status, the same percentage became infected regardless of what percentage of the population was infected. Translation: Vaccination status has no bearing whatsoever on spread rate among the previously uninfected. None. Zilch.

The one glaring omission from the above data is re-infection rates among those who have been previously infected. That brings me to the second thing I find interesting about this data: the fact that there WAS a significant correlation in the NYT daily new case data between higher vaccinated states having higher case rates. If the new cases among the previously uninfected are flat regardless of vaccination status, that would appear to suggest that re-infection rates among the vaccinated must be higher in order to make up the overall higher case rates.

Continue to ignore severity - have you looked at the U-M data I posted?

[bmw]

Continue to ignore severity - have you looked at the U-M data I posted?

That is a separate discussion. The OP created this specifically re: vaccination and case spread rates, and that is what I responded to. I don't know why you insist on derailing every single post about Covid spread with a discussion about severity. That is absolutely a worthy topic of discussion, but simply screaming "SEVERITY!" as a response to spread doesn't address the specific issue of spread.

[bmw]

Interesting!! Thanks for pulling that together!

Thanks. I still have to put together one regarding how well existing herd immunity protects the uninfected, but I'm trying to figure out the best way to represent that data. This one is trickier because herd immunity is more threshold-based than anything else - I want to know if there is a certain herd immunity level where cases among the uninfected start to fall off. I'll probably chart it a few different ways and post them all here.

[Matt]

Continue to ignore severity - have you looked at the U-M data I posted?

That is a separate discussion. The OP created this specifically re: vaccination and case spread rates, and that is what I responded to. I don't know why you insist on derailing every single post about Covid spread with a discussion about severity. That is absolutely a worthy topic of discussion, but simply screaming "SEVERITY!" as a response to spread doesn't address the specific issue of spread.

Severity is the issue, and it always has been to most of us, whether acknowledged or not.

[FakeAndyStuart]

First, the previously uninfected percentage does not take into account one's vaccination status. So what this complete lack of correlation means is that of all uninfected people, regardless of vaccination status, the same percentage became infected regardless of what percentage of the population was infected. Translation: Vaccination status has no bearing whatsoever on spread rate among the previously uninfected. None. Zilch.

I'm truly fascinated by your attempts to analyze all this statistically, but I'm still not sure what your goal is. Mine is to encourage people to get vaccinated. And perhaps as the OP, my initial post did not do the job. So let me try another way.

I get a flu shot every year. One year, I did actually catch some version of the flu. It was mild, I stayed in bed and drank fluids and got better. When I spoke to the doctor that recommended a flu shot (and still does) they said "There. The shot helped, didn't it?" Influenza, like a cold, is just another SARS virus, like COVID. Vaccines against SARS don't 100% prevent infection, and I was not promised that with the flu shot.

Messaging in US about vaccines and infections has been horrible and amplified by those who feel the govt. is lying to them. Your focus on vaccination rates and not severity causes me to believe you are one of them who feels lied to. I'm sorry if that is the case, and I blame a lot of people ("good people, on both sides") who've done a piss poor job of selling the benefits available.

Now, let me speak in anecdotal evidence and not statistics.
100% of the people I am personally acquainted with who have died after catching COVID were not vaccinated (either not available yet or chose against.)
100% of the people I am personally acquainted with who are vaccinated and have tested positive for COVID have recovered with either mild or no symptoms.
1 person who I am not personally aquatinted with but someone in my circle is died not long after getting the vaccine. While no autopsy was performed that I am aware of, I was told that it was determined that death was caused by something other than the contents of the injection.

You need to do what's right for you. If you ask my opinion, you're trying to keep a lot of plates spinning on the ends of poles to justify your decisions. This post justifies mine. Have a great life and stay safe.

[Honeyman]

Your sensible words Andy are only beating a dead (unvaccinated) horse. If these anti-vax idiots are not swayed after the past 2 years, they ain't gonna be now.

[km1125]

.... 1 person who I am not personally aquatinted with but someone in my circle is died not long after getting the vaccine. While no autopsy was performed that I am aware of, I was told that it was determined that death was caused by something other than the contents of the injection. ....

That's an interesting case, and I wonder how that compares with people that die from COVID. Because, as we've been told, they don't actually die from COVID, but from the body's immune system reacting to COVID or from some other damage that COVID has done to their body. If they never had COVID, would they have died? If your person never got vaccinated, would they have died?

[km1125]

Which is effective?

The first shot? Second shot? Booster?

(Take nats full infomercial voice) “But wait, there’s more!”

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/healt ... efd948e39e

Yes. A fourth shot.

So good, you have to get more!

Living in fear is so 2020. Grow up and grow a pair.

Maybe the Justice Department can use their new Domestic Terrorism force to make sure those folks get their 4th shots!

You know, because if they don't they're putting the rest of us at risk!!