Is anyone else suprised at just how many fully vaccinated people are catching Covid?

[RoseRedRoseBlue]

Exactly this. Sky were reporting today that appx 35% of those hospitalised were double jabbed and I had no idea it would be as high as that.

My first post on the thread was the one immediately after the OP started it.

[quote Steakandcheeseplease]@Geamhradh you should probably spend a little time reading the thread. instead of diving in right at the end.[/quote]
RTFT.

Interesting post today from a US doctor showing Xray of a vaccinated and unvaccinated COVID patients lung.
Does seem to support idea that caccjbe keeps bulk infection off the lung.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9853539/Doctor-shares-X-rays-showing-difference-lungs-unvaccinated-vaccinated-COVID-19-patients.html

@Steakandcheeseplease you can still refuse that your child be vaccinated in a state school 😳😂

@Geamhradh take your own advice!

[quote Hopeisallineed]@Steakandcheeseplease you can still refuse that your child be vaccinated in a state school 😳😂[/quote]
Yeah you'd think so..

@MedSchoolRat I had thought that.

Really as a double vaxxed fairly healthy person I'd be better getting a boost from a dose of Delta now. Across the board that would keep immunity levels higher into autumn / winter.

I am double vaccinated and spent 24 hours in close contact with someone with Delta (unknowingly of course). Me and my fully vaccinated family didn't get it (4 of us) despite prolonged contact.

The person who unwittingly brought it in to our house got it and spread to ALL of his unvaccinated friends he'd been at the pub with.

The vaccines do work, just not 100%

I don’t just think so, I know so….@steak you obviously don’t have much experience of state schools. 🙄

But it’s very rare it’s torrential rain all day without a break…sure it happens but not for the most part.

Whoops! Sorry. Wrong thread.

This is also a great explanation from the Book of Why.

It's been sitting on my bookshelf and seeing it tweeted reminded me I really must finish it

@Backofbeyond50

Interesting post today from a US doctor showing Xray of a vaccinated and unvaccinated COVID patients lung. Does seem to support idea that caccjbe keeps bulk infection off the lung.

That’s been going around for a while. I’m Not sure how useful it is to see two X-rays of different peoples lungs and entirely attribute the differences to whether or not they’ve had the vaccine. The majority of people have the virus asymptomatically/mildly and their lungs would be fine too.

@Backofbeyond50

Interesting post today from a US doctor showing Xray of a vaccinated and unvaccinated COVID patients lung. Does seem to support idea that caccjbe keeps bulk infection off the lung.

Interesting and sadly unsurprising @Backofbeyond50

@bumbleymummy these differences in COVID-related lung pathology in unvaccinated versus vaccinated groups have been replicated in larger samples. It's a fairly robust finding.

For example - a recent preprint

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.15.21260597v2

Thanks for the link. Just a couple of things after a quick read..

“ Patients with both doses completed 1 week prior to CT scan were considered fully vaccinated”

We don’t usually classify patients as fully vaccinated until 2 weeks after their second dose.

“Of the 229 patients only 29 (13%) had complete vaccination, 38 (17%) had partial vaccination and 162 (70%) had no vaccination.”

Numbers are a bit ‘unbalanced’ between groups.

The box plot for the ‘fully vaccinated’ group has four outliers

“ We did not have patient details other than their basic demographics, COVID-19 RT-PCR status, vaccination status and CT severity score. Patient details such as their oxygen saturations, hospital admission status, co-morbidities and mortality were not available.”

So there could be several other factors at play. They aren’t controlling for any co-morbidities.

Certainly an area of interest that deserves further study.

@bumbleymummy I understand that you are not keen on having the vaccine. That’s entirely your choice but you do seem to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to negate or downplay or twist any pro-vaccine findings or research.
These x rays are part of several much larger studies and they do carry a lot of credence. Whatever you thoughts, preferences and ideas about the vaccine, you constant stealth, low level anti vaxxing is really not helping anyone. You are quietly planting seeds of uncertainty all over Mumsnet with no qualifications or scientific knowledge to back any of it up.

*your not ‘you’

@bumbleymummy

Thanks for the link. Just a couple of things after a quick read..

“ Patients with both doses completed 1 week prior to CT scan were considered fully vaccinated”

We don’t usually classify patients as fully vaccinated until 2 weeks after their second dose.

“Of the 229 patients only 29 (13%) had complete vaccination, 38 (17%) had partial vaccination and 162 (70%) had no vaccination.”

Numbers are a bit ‘unbalanced’ between groups.

The box plot for the ‘fully vaccinated’ group has four outliers

“ We did not have patient details other than their basic demographics, COVID-19 RT-PCR status, vaccination status and CT severity score. Patient details such as their oxygen saturations, hospital admission status, co-morbidities and mortality were not available.”

So there could be several other factors at play. They aren’t controlling for any co-morbidities.

Certainly an area of interest that deserves further study.

Just a couple of things after a quick read

You realise I'm not a coauthor?

Yup residual confounding is a problem with observational studies, and there were factors they were not able to adjust for.

Which direction do you think not controlling for oxygen sats, hospital admission status, co-morbidities would bias effect estimates? I would suggest some of these are mediators and therefore not appropriate to include in their models (as mediation isn't what they were examining) anyway.

"The box plot for the ‘fully vaccinated’ group has four outliers"

eh? I'd be more worried if a study didn't have any outliers as it's hallmark of falsified data.

Equally not sure why you want balanced groups when it's not a matched design, it's perfectly reasonable in an observational study to not have equal numbers in both groups. It will affect the precision for sure, but it's not something that will bias findings.

@Hopeisallineed I’m not anti-vaxx, not downplaying anything and I do have qualifications and scientific knowledge. I’d be interested in reading other studies if you want to link to them. I was just posting brief comments on the one that was linked.

@ollyollyoxenfree for a second I read that you were a co-author and felt bad for only posting negative comments

I think existing comorbidities and things like smoking status and maybe even BMI (seeing as we know it’s a significant risk factor) should be controlled for don’t you? We could be comparing unvaccinated, obese copd patients with vaccinated otherwise healthy people!

4 outliers out of quite a small group though. 4 out of 29 were outliers.

So you are vaccinated then?

As I said, outliers are not a criteria one would look at when assessing study quality.

You might find this helpful - the Newcastle Ottawa scale is the gold standard when evaluating the quality of observational studies. When the groups are of equal sizes, and outliers in the dataset are not criteria.

Yup some of those listed confounds would be important to include and would lower the rating on whether the groups are equivalent by design or statistically.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK476448/table/appc.t4/

@ollyollyoxenfree

Equally not sure why you want balanced groups when it's not a matched design, it's perfectly reasonable in an observational study to not have equal numbers in both groups. It will affect the precision for sure, but it's not something that will bias findings.

Not saying that they should be equal but there are very few ‘fully’ vaccinated patients (and how many of them should technically be considered partially vaccinated (

[quote Hopeisallineed]@bumbleymummy I understand that you are not keen on having the vaccine. That’s entirely your choice but you do seem to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to negate or downplay or twist any pro-vaccine findings or research.
These x rays are part of several much larger studies and they do carry a lot of credence. Whatever you thoughts, preferences and ideas about the vaccine, you constant stealth, low level anti vaxxing is really not helping anyone. You are quietly planting seeds of uncertainty all over Mumsnet with no qualifications or scientific knowledge to back any of it up.[/quote]
Yup, this.

Everyone's choice to get vaccinated or not, and no one should be judged for it. But no need to misinform - "low level" is a good word for it and IMO more harmful than the outlandish anti-vaxxers who go so far as to be ridiculous.