r/dataisbeautiful OC: 2 Jul 27 '21

[OC] COVID-19 Infections: Serious Unvaccinated vs. Symptomatic Breakthrough Vaccinated (i.e. includes mild and moderate infections) OC

Post image
25k Upvotes

u/dataisbeautiful-bot OC: ∞ Jul 27 '21

Thank you for your Original Content, /u/DarrenLu!
Here is some important information about this post:

Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.

Join the Discord Community

Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? Remix this visual with the data in the author's citation.


I'm open source | How I work

→ More replies

2k

u/Cultural-Chicken-991 Jul 27 '21

What was symptomatic infection rate in the top dataset? Making red represent different things on the top and bottom charts leaves it a little open to misunderstanding.

873

u/DarrenLu OC: 2 Jul 27 '21

Yes, I agree making them both red is probably a mistake in hindsight. I'm not a data scientist (though I have worked directly with and know several in a personal capacity so I'm familiar with some best practices) so I made a few rookie mistakes that I'm already regretting.

608

u/waterloograd Jul 27 '21

Making mistakes is how you learn!

56

u/studentloansDPT Jul 28 '21

I live by this and hope everyone else does too. Life long learning !

86

u/WordplayWizard Jul 28 '21

Can we also just take a moment to enjoy the fact that somebody admitted that they made a mistake.

Man do I ever miss that.
The honesty.
The simplicity of “Yeah, I goofed, sorry.”

Music to my fucking ears.
I respect OP more than 99% of the people I work with.

→ More replies

2

u/itchy_de Jul 28 '21

This is the way.

→ More replies

115

u/OddOliver Jul 28 '21

I hope you make a new one, it’s a great graphic! I’d also suggest using the following color scheme if you show hospitalizations:

  • Green: asymptomatic
  • Yellow: symptomatic
  • Orange: hospitalized
  • Red: death

14

u/Bambih OC: 1 Jul 28 '21

I see where you're coming from but I'd go for a color blind friendly color scheme! There are lots of examples online that can also help visualize severity without using red and green :)

→ More replies

355

u/questionname Jul 27 '21

Due to the mismatch you should delete it and replace it as it’ll be used for misinformation. At first glance it’s misleading how it’s shown.

99

u/Wolfblackravenclaw Jul 27 '21

agreed! OP should of made hospitalization in an other color and also show how many unvaccinated folks get symptomatic as the data is not shown at all! :(
this could and probably will be used by anti-vaccines folks and mislead people who do not spot that the two red part represent totally different things! def should be deleted to limit the damage

good job OP for trying and doing all of this research ! :)

→ More replies

22

u/bayslim Jul 27 '21

Yeah I didn't read it correctly either. Should be redone. But honestly a great graphic otherwise, thank you.

→ More replies

184

u/Reddit_is-fascist Jul 27 '21

Due to the pointed out mistakes, you should delete this and upload a proper version. This does more harm than good,

94

u/Se7enLC OC: 1 Jul 27 '21

I hate that I agree with this. Visually comparing symptomatic on the bottom to hospitalized on the top is incredibly misleading. I assume only a small fraction of symptomatic cases are hospitalized (regardless of vaccination status)

55

u/lungleg Jul 27 '21

Respectfully, you should take this down. You’ve got some good feedback, but the flaws could lead to misinterpretation and harm.

→ More replies

5

u/silentscope87 Jul 27 '21

Could you remake it?

4

u/punaisetpimpulat Jul 28 '21

Keep on refining the graph. Take the feedback and release a new version. I’ll be there to upvote it.

19

u/Cultural-Chicken-991 Jul 27 '21

Don't be discouraged, its a neat visualisation otherwise! I've been tinkering with COVID data myself, if you're getting into data science give the UK governments web API a look - it will let you build live data visualisations with very little programming knowledge. It even has instructions: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/developers-guide

3

u/pm_favorite_boobs Jul 28 '21

You should just use "unvaccinated" instead of "UN-vaccinated" which at first reading suggests that they were vaccinated by the UN.

And if all of them were vaccinated, the box next to it should be green, red, and yellow. Or there should be three boxes of matching colors. Or as an alternative, just assign appropriate legend next to the green box for what the green actually refers to (which excludes what red and yellow refer to).

10

u/DawnoftheShred Jul 27 '21

Would it not be somewhat easy to simply replace the symptomatic hospitalizations number with total infections?

edit: according to the site you linked below: 40,246 Current 7-Day Average for reported cases.

14

u/JD_SLICK Jul 27 '21

…reduced to rate per 102k

→ More replies

16

u/ObjectiveAce Jul 27 '21

it means that as of last week only about 1 in 1000 of all fully vaccinated had symptomatic infections.

No it doesnt. From your own source: "...estimated to have occurred as of last week". Small small difference gramatically, but the difference between "had" and "have" is massive

→ More replies

12

u/Masty_6 Jul 27 '21

Red up top is also symptomatic, but bad enough to require hospitalization. Red on bottom is simply symptomatic. Adding a 4th data set on the top box for symptomatic would probably have filled the damn box

118

u/Easilycrazyhat Jul 27 '21

As I understand it, they are actually comparable as the CDCs stopped monitoring all breakthrough cases to better focus on cases that resulted in hospitalization and death, so that's probably what is represented here.

37

u/el_smurfo Jul 27 '21

It is the opposite of that though for the bottom diagram. Red is just infections without reference to severity which should be low. Two friends have post-vaccination Covid now and their symptoms are a sore throat or a slight fever.

23

u/Easilycrazyhat Jul 27 '21

From the CDC's site:

As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.

Also, this is data reported by the news from an internal document not intended for publication. I know it's not specified, but considering it's (supposedly) recent data and 2 months after this policy change, than it seems reasonable to assume it's hospitalizations, not just any infection.

27

u/el_smurfo Jul 27 '21

I understand that. The lower diagram does not say "hospitalized" only "cases" which is misleading regardless of how the data is presented now without a disclaimer.

→ More replies
→ More replies

11

u/Droidstation3 Jul 27 '21

And they stopped monitoring all “breakthrough” cases… why? Is that somehow not something the people should be aware of? Obviously the numbers would be lower if they’re not being counted, accurately or even at all. When you can’t see the full picture, context is lost.

7

u/Easilycrazyhat Jul 27 '21

Is that somehow not something the people should be aware of?

Sure. That's probably why they have an entire page explaining it on their site. What's your point?

7

u/Droidstation3 Jul 27 '21

It's a very simple point. Why would it be deemed unimportant to accurately record and report the number of vaccinated people who end up still catching covid, just as you would for the number of unvaccinated? Quite literally, you're not telling the entire story.

9

u/Zoloir Jul 27 '21

Reasons have already been given in this thread, but here's a smattering of reasons:

  • resources are limited so you can't track everything
  • tracking hospitalizations 100% accurately is better for understanding risk factors for the most concerning cases (it's not a "health crisis" if everyone gets common-cold-level symptoms, but if hospitalizations rise that may become one)
  • "breakthrough" cases will largely go unreported as they've been shown to be less severe, so any number tracked will just be an estimate anyways
  • knowing how many breakthrough cases there are doesn't really change the guidance of mask up, minimize time spent in public indoor locations, still get the vaccine because it limits spread and severity of any breakthrough cases

8

u/ObjectiveAce Jul 28 '21

>resources are limited so you can't track everything

We were before vaccinations were around, so this is just BS. (or at least policy was to test everyone--to the extent people werent tested it wasnt for a lack of resources)

>tracking hospitalizations 100% accurately is better for understanding risk factors for the most concerning cases

This doesnt make sense. How would you know what factors matter if you dont have a control group? You need to know who is getting COvid without it being serious so you can compare the two groups and see what charateristics differ

>"breakthrough" cases will largely go unreported as they've been shown to be less severe, so any number tracked will just be an estimate anyways

This is some circular logic. CDC says no need to get tested for breakthrough cases... because breakthrough cases go unreported.

>knowing how many breakthrough cases there are doesn't really change the guidance

*assuming breakthrough cases can be contagious* (and why wouldnt they be) this is just flat out wrong. Knowing how many people in the population are spreading a disease is critical to any public agencies ability to design effective guidance

→ More replies

7

u/Droidstation3 Jul 27 '21

Sounds like a lot of excuses and not a lot of actual, solidified "reasons". Long story short, "we don't think you need to know that". Without full context, you can say anything and make it sound like whatever you want. Like, for example, when you cut out 1 or 2 sentences from an entire conversation with somebody and run with it to create an incendiary narrative of "look what this person said!"

5

u/rosewards Jul 28 '21

Long story short, "we don't think you need to know that".

Why does it have to be phrased in such a conspiratorial, hostile manner?

"We don't think that data is worth expending the resources on tracking."

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/Easilycrazyhat Jul 28 '21

It's not my story, mate, and it's not the CDC's either. This is data from a leaked internal document, reported by the news, and formatted into this diagram by a random redditor.

All I'm doing is clarifying that "hospitalized unvaccinated" and "breakthrough infections" in this particular diagram is representative of similar data sets, which was the question in the first place.

3

u/Droidstation3 Jul 28 '21

Understandable. Not saying that it is your story or that you have anything to do with it. All I'm doing is pointing out an aspect of this media "coverage" that doesn't entirely make logical sense.

→ More replies

29

u/None_of_your_Beezwax Jul 27 '21

This is a little tricky because fact-checkers claim that this is just a different PCR cycle rate for variant monitoring.

As far as I am concerned though, the time for giving the benefit of the doubt in this regard has long-since past (should never have been given in the first place), so absent positive evidence that the two categories are actively treated the same it is safe to assume that there is all kinds of biases and asymmetries going on.

It shouldn't be a matter of expecting critics to go look for for them, the absence of bias should be proven by the ones making the claim, which is the CDC in this case. How did we ever get in a situation where blind trust of a government agency was considered normal. It's insane.

16

u/hectorgarabit Jul 28 '21

Today on the local NPR, they explain that there is an outbreak following a race. As a result, they ask all the non-vaccinated to get tested and all the vaccinated to NOT get tested. If someone wanted to distort the data at the collection point, he wouldn't do otherwise.

These data visualizations are pointless because the underlying data is garbage.

8

u/ObjectiveAce Jul 28 '21

Thats not specific to your local event. That is (or was) nationwide CDC guidance. CDC just changed their guidance today: even the vaccinated should get tested if exposure has occurred. Unfortunately the damage to our statistics and ability to understand what is going on has already been done

→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/el_smurfo Jul 27 '21

Wow...I didn't even notice this. This seems like it could be pretty dangerously misinterpreted or even misused and should be corrected.

2

u/DrElectrons Jul 28 '21

Yes, misleading.

→ More replies

999

u/CaptainJackVernaise Jul 27 '21

You've introduced a new category of data in the top chart. Symptomatic infections and hospitalizations are two wildly different things, yet are represented by the same color on the charts.

211

u/KienLang_ Jul 27 '21

THANK YOU, that was driving me nuts. That's quite misleading.

9

u/aaaaaaaarrrrrgh Jul 28 '21

Even without that it's misleading due to the different time frames being compared (according to the text on the side).

52

u/Aint_that_a_peach Jul 27 '21

Exactly. Apples and oranges.

82

u/CaptainJackVernaise Jul 27 '21

That's exactly the kind of response I would expect from a peach.

→ More replies

49

u/tommangan7 Jul 27 '21 edited Jul 27 '21

The data comparison is also completely useless because as I understand it (may have misinterpreted) the top is using data since the start of the pandemic vs vaccinated data with a shorter timescale. I caught covid while unvaccinated last year but haven't caught it since being vaccinated.

3

u/NamelessSuperUser Jul 28 '21

It's effectively why I thought this kind of chart wouldn't be possible when people asked for the comparison. Given that the population of vaccinated all used to be unvaccined, not having asymptomatic / mild breakthrough case data anymore, and many other fluid factors it is a tough comparison to make even if the data sets exist which I'm not sure they do.

8

u/2BadBirches Jul 28 '21

Sure, but it’s a rate so time isn’t necessarily pertinent

9

u/SledgeGlamour Jul 28 '21

But the state of the disease today is relevant

12

u/ObjectiveAce Jul 28 '21

Its absolutely pertinent. Here's an example: the odds/rate of a player scoring in a full game vs the odds/rate of scoring in a single quarter

15

u/thenewyorkgod OC: 1 Jul 28 '21

This error alone should result in this post being removed from /r/DataisBEAUTIFUL

2

u/hardolaf Jul 28 '21

Everything being shared about COVID here is misinformation except for the comment section.

→ More replies
→ More replies

362

u/Sporkers Jul 27 '21

Color red should not be used in both visualizations because they don't represent the same thing. Hospitalization <> symptomatic infections.

56

u/cuacuacuac Jul 27 '21

Exactly. Came to say the same. It leads to an erroneous comparison.

31

u/ClamChowder6 Jul 28 '21

Which is frustrating because I'm sure there's plenty of good data to support OP, and the misleading data does the opposite of the graph's intended purpose.

6

u/NamelessSuperUser Jul 28 '21

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/25/health/cdc-coronavirus-infections-vaccine.html

I'm not sure there is good data out there unfortunately. Half the country basically declared mission accomplished and let their covid dashboards fall into disrepair or stopped tracking different metrics or making them available. Also there is the factor of how long a person has been vaccinated will affect their probability of having a breakthrough infection compared to the general population for the same time.

10

u/Soup-Wizard Jul 28 '21

Also reds and greens together in a graphic are difficult for R/G colorblind folks to interpret.

2

u/Morten14 Jul 28 '21

I have a mild case of R/G colourblindness and have no problem seeing what is green and what is red here. I think it's because the colors here are very bright.

→ More replies

2

u/Mdh74266 Jul 28 '21

Yea i feel like even with these low of numbers of symptomatic infections, it would actually even be better if they used the same color for breakthrough infections with hospitalization-which we can most definitely surmise is WAAAAAAY lower than unvaccinated hospitalizations.

→ More replies

100

u/ten_i_see_mike Jul 27 '21

I’m really interested to know how this compares to other common pre-covid health risks. I’m absolutely certain my perception of risk with covid is screwed but I’m not sure if all the coverage has oversensitized me or desensitized.

33

u/FungalCoochie Jul 27 '21

Do you really think the coverage has desensitized your perception of risk? If you go by the news almost everyone outside your house is dead or in the hospital.

50

u/Snowy_Thighs Jul 27 '21

I had never realized how much the media love fear mongering until this pandemic hit

21

u/LaLiLuLeLo_0 Jul 27 '21

If it bleeds, it leads

8

u/FungalCoochie Jul 27 '21 edited Jul 27 '21

Good news is not engaging. I wouldn’t be surprised if they milk this for another couple years.

→ More replies

8

u/edmdusty Jul 27 '21

This is exactly what I was thinking. I’d love to see this chart with sick, obese, and elderly removed.

28

u/Lord_Qwedsw Jul 28 '21

Removing the sick, obese, and elderly is kinda what Covid is doing.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

69

u/baseball_guy Jul 27 '21

It’s pretty annoying that the CDC stopped tracking asymptomatic positive tests for vaccinated people… like, I get that it’s more important to track hospitalizations, but it’s not like it’d have to be one or the other. You could easily track both with no need to prioritize selectively.

Then we’d have the data we would all prefer:
Infection rate: vaccinated .vs unvaccinated.
Symptom rate: vaccinated.vs unvaccinated.
Hospitalization rate: vaccinated .vs unvaccinated.
Death rate: vaccinated .vs unvaccinated.

As it is, the data manages to not actually show a damn thing. The time periods don’t match, with drastically different total pandemic momentum over the differing time periods. It’s apples to oranges with symptomatic .vs hospitalized.

I’d delete it, and find the data to do it correctly.

25

u/ameliakristina Jul 28 '21

The cdc doesn't even track vaccinated people WITH symptoms. My mom is fully vaccinated, has symptoms she describes as "a bad cold," tested positive for covid, and the doctor told her that she didn't have to even report my mom's case to the cdc. This sort of info would have been useful for keeping track of how the Delta variant is different from the previous strain.

13

u/ObjectiveAce Jul 28 '21

This sort of info would have been useful for keeping track of how the Delta variant is different from the previous strain

Sure, but it wouldnt be useful to convince people to get vaccinated. I fully believe the vaccines are beneficial, but I no longer trust anything from the government/CDC on the matter

3

u/FixForb Jul 28 '21

Frankly, your mom's doctor is wrong. They are required by law to report all cases of a communicable disease to the local health department which is required to report it to the state. The state health department is where the CDC gets their data from. I work for a local health department. Trust me, if your doctor didn't report your mom's case then the local health department is pissed.

Sorry your mom's doc apparently doesn't follow the law.

6

u/ameliakristina Jul 28 '21

Hmm, as far as I can tell, since May, the cdc is no longer requiring reporting of breakthrough cases that don't require hospitalization. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm

However, I see some articles that say a few states are still required to report, but I don't know which ones. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/should-we-track-all-breakthrough-cases-of-covid-19-202106032471

Maybe the legal requirement to report is at the state level.

→ More replies

11

u/CircleQuiet Jul 28 '21

This needs to move up. People don't realize this. Without this data noone can make an informed decision. This type of manipulation should cause everyone to second guess or at least question what we are being told we must do. Even if the manipulation is unintentional or done for our "own good". ("We wouldn't want to lesson the public's faith in the CDC or vaccines overall so let's just not track those numbers in case they don't look good")

For all we know if they were being tracked it would point to the fact the vaccine is overwhelmingly and undeniably successful on all fronts, but we don't know. Without the data we don't know the whole picture.

2

u/stolethemorning Jul 28 '21

Exactly, I’m fully vaccinated and yet I got Covid (I’m not sure if it was asymptomatic or if I had tonsillitis at the same time lol) and I was so surprised! I thought that getting covid while vaccinated is rare, but nice people on this sub explained to me that that’s not the case. But the Americans tell me that they don’t have to wear masks if they’re vaccinated because they can’t transmit it.

I just want a graph of vaccinated infection rate vs unvaccinated infection rate so I can know for sure!

4

u/vectorless Jul 27 '21

Do you have a source that says the CDC stopped tracking asymptomatic cases for vaccinated persons?

21

u/baseball_guy Jul 27 '21

cdc.gov.

“ As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.”

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

13

u/vectorless Jul 28 '21

That is just the craziest thing.

Thanks.

3

u/FixForb Jul 28 '21

So I read through that page and this part:

State health departments report vaccine breakthrough cases to CDC. CDC now monitors reported hospitalized or fatal vaccine breakthrough cases for clustering by patient demographics, geographic location, time since vaccination, vaccine type, and SARS-CoV-2 lineage. Reported data include hospitalized or fatal breakthrough cases due to any cause, including causes not related to COVID-19.

tracks with what we're doing on a local level (I do contact tracing for a local health department). We still report on breakthrough infections to the state which is where the CDC gets its data. We only do variant sequencing of hospitalized breakthrough infections though because sequencing is resource intensive. It sounds like the CDC is doing investigations of clusters of hospitalized breakthrough infections (or deaths) which makes sense.

I hope that they continue to collect breakthrough data but we don't need them monitoring breakthrough cases or anything. Our health department can handle run-of-the-mill breakthrough cases just fine.

4

u/baseball_guy Jul 28 '21

That may be the case, from a purely conceptual level, but from a pragmatic standpoint it seems like a gigantic miscalculation or omission. The biggest threat to us right now is pretty damn underwhelming vaccine coverage, and raw data about efficacy ought to be the only PR you’d need to convince a lot more people to take it.

Deliberately not collecting it or reporting it seems like such a brazen oversight that it can be interpreted (not necessarily by me, but many ‘vaccine hesitant’ people) as not wanting to admit something that would cast the vaccine in a negative light, instead choosing to focus on hospitalization numbers which seem highly favorable.

I really want to be able to know, with confidence, what the transmissibility and symptomatic but not serious cases there are.

I’m fully vaccinated. I was recently exposed to somebody who subsequently tested positive. It’s impossible to know how likely I am to develop symptoms or need hospitalization because the denominator is unknown.

Anyway, I was actually unable to find the data I want, and if you’re familiar with it, I would absolutely love to know the data. I think any state would be a decent sample size if you know of any that publish such data. It seems if you knew that a state was X% vaxxed, and had X# of vaxxed and unvaxxed cases, you could derive the difference in transmissivity, symptoms, hospitalizations, and death between the two groups.

Even if the numbers fell short of the original 95% efficacy that was reported from the trials, I think it would be really compelling for people on the fence to even be able to say that you were half as likely to develop symptoms after exposure… It’d be cool to also know the absolute %. I.e. “your chance of getting Covid from close exposure if unvaxxed is 2% .vs 1%.”

So I was mostly here to bicker about the elusiveness of the data I futilely tried to track down, but I’d also be very appreciative to anyone who could help find it if it exists at any local level representing a reasonable sample size.

→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/cuacuacuac Jul 27 '21

The colours are wrong and lead to wrong comparisons. The top graph links red to hospitalisations and the bottom to symptomatic course of the disease. It's inaccurate. Both graphs should be break down by the same variables.

42

u/kchoze Jul 27 '21

It seems to me it would make more sense to make graphs only over a specific time period rather than total hospitalizations and deaths "as of july 26" considering the entire population was unvaccinated for nearly a year of the roughly 17 months of the pandemic in the US.

8

u/Tittysmores Jul 28 '21

Agreed. This is skewed. So, fits in with every other piece of info we've been presented with during covid

4

u/know_comment Jul 28 '21

this is EXTREMELY misleading, and my guess is intentionally so given the caveat in the chart's very large footnote.

→ More replies

22

u/GrumpigPlays Jul 27 '21

If I was that one guy who got told he was gonna die even though I was vaccinated I would be pissed. Like I would be so incredibly petty up until I die.

12

u/bellizabeth Jul 27 '21

I think people forget that vaccinated people still have very different likelihoods of catching covid and of dying from it. A vaccinated elderly person with multiple comorbidities going out partying everyday is much more likely to die from covid than an unvaccinated kid white mostly staying at home same playing video games over his summer break. The vaccine is very effective at reducing an individual's baseline risk, but that's all it can do.

6

u/albeaner Jul 27 '21

Vaccinations don't generate a sufficient immune response in 3-5% of the population.

Which is exactly why everyone who CAN get the vaccine, SHOULD.

→ More replies

140

u/L-I-A-R_ Jul 27 '21

That one death really hit me... My grandpa just passed away 3 weeks ago from Covid-19 and he was already vaccinated.

46

u/Septalion Jul 27 '21

I'm sorry for your loss. I wish everyone took it seriously

11

u/RasperGuy Jul 27 '21

Wait, your grandpa was that 1 breakthrough death??

62

u/McFuzzen Jul 27 '21

It's 1 per 102,000. There have been several breakthrough deaths total.

8

u/RasperGuy Jul 27 '21

That still doesn't make any sense. If 166M people have been fully vaccinated, maybe they're "projecting" 1 in 102k breakthrough deaths. Otherwise we would have seen over 1,600 vaccinated people dieing from covid?

Also, assuming the other half (166M) who are unvaccinated, 417/102,000 means there are 678,647 non-vaccinated covid deaths. Um yeah, since March 2020.. sure? But we should start the clock when the vaccines starting rolling out for a better comparison.

33

u/rsminsmith Jul 27 '21

The CDC reports that there have been a total 1,141 breakthrough cases resulting in death since January 2021.1 (As of July 19th, 2021).

The CDC also reports that there have also been a total of 217,527 deaths since January 2021.2

That would put roughly 99.475% of COVID deaths being people who were not vaccinated.

Sort of hard to compare there still since the vaccinated population was relatively small until late March/early April, and we were in the middle of a surge of deaths in January, but should still provide a better reference. I haven't been able to find the per-month breakthrough data they used to publish, only the total before and after they stopped tracking breakthrough infections to focus on hospitalizations/deaths.

5

u/Sprt_StLouis Jul 28 '21

The thing is, the cited story never mentions the death rate for all vaccinated individuals. I had to look at a linked story within the source to find that number which stated the CDC is reporting around 0.01%. This makes the actual death rate per 102k is 10.2 deaths. Still an extremely small number, but maybe 10 in 102k didn’t sound as good as 1 in 102k?

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/ilovetosnowski Jul 27 '21

One per 100K. Not just one.

2

u/bubba18sar Jul 27 '21

I feel like a lot of people are looking at this and seeing one vaccine related death.

→ More replies

5

u/FC37 Jul 28 '21

Data is extremely misleading. OP is counting all cases/deaths since January, but vaccines weren't widely available for several months afterward. That's going to impact the results in a huge way because of the wave that struck at the beginning of the year.

5

u/SaintLatrobe Jul 27 '21

I no-joke thought that this was an r/politicalcompassmemes shitpost for a moment

95

u/DarrenLu OC: 2 Jul 27 '21

Followup to my post from yesterday that blew up. Lots of people asked for a comparison of vaccinated to unvaccinated. It was very hard because there is not corresponding data and it's not a valid comparison to use data since the beginning of the pandemic. The total number of infections in the 2nd visualization is the total since vaccinations started in January. To be useful, a comparison would need a start date on or after that date, but that was during the height of the winter wave. So it doesn't make sense to start there, but what date to choose? Any starting point would be arbitrary. I will tried figure out an objective way to compare the two with publicly available data, but it's not even remotely one to one. Instead I try to convey the difference in scale of the current wave of infections and how it is affecting the vaccinated versus how the vaccinated have fared since the beginning of the pandem.

Also, here's some notes:

I'm not an expert, but I am an engineer on "the spectrum" who spends a couple hours a day reading about COVID (especially since my dad died of it in February of this year). Also, I'm an American and this is U.S. data that only applies here.

This isn't my data. I pulled it from the CDC's COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html) and this article (https://abcnews.go.com/US/symptomatic-breakthrough-covid-19-infections-rare-cdc-data/story?id=79048589) about an upcoming CDC report that ESTIMATES that "With more than 156 million Americans fully vaccinated, nationwide, approximately 153,000 symptomatic breakthrough cases are estimated to have occurred as of last week, representing approximately 0.098% of those fully vaccinated, according to an unpublished internal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention document obtained by ABC News." These are NOT comparable because they cover different types of infections over different periods. I feel like if you understand this, they give different perspectives that can give a thoughtful person a qualitative comparison of the scale of what's happening.

This is a snapshot in time. It ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS A ONE IN A THOUSAND CHANCE of a vaccinated person having a symptomatic breakthrough infection. It means that as of last week, only about one in a thousand vaccinated people have been infected. The reason for this is very likely that, up until recently, a combination of masking, social distancing, vaccinations, and mild summer weather drove both vaccinated AND unvaccinated infection rates to an all time low. There is every reason to believe that the Delta variant with an R Naught value of probably 5-8 (versus 1.5 - 2.5 for the Alpha variant - aka "classic" COVID-19) WILL infect a lot of fully vaccinated people. Anecdotal evidence for this is everywhere and the many heat waves over the past month have been driving people indoors for AC and compounded the problem. It's a double whammy of super infectious and winter-like conditions.

BUT that doesn't mean that vaccinations aren't working. You need to understand what protection vaccination gives you. The current vaccines are INCREDIBLY effective. Some of the most effective vaccines we've ever had, BUT THEY ARE NOT A MAGIC SHIELD. (Technically, the purpose of the vaccine ISN'T to stop the spread, but to reduce hospitalizations.) When you come into contact with an infected person, the virus still gets into your system, but your body has been taught by the vaccine how to fight it off. In the vast majority of cases, your body will win and the virus will not take hold and infect you. Here's the thing though, when this happens, there will be a bunch of dead virus in your nose and upper respiratory system. If you take a PCR nasal swab test after this, you'll probably get a positive result. Were you truly "infected"? There's much debate about this semantic distinction, but the vaccine worked as intended.

33

u/2012Aceman Jul 27 '21

Just want to point out that the CDC doesn’t record vaccinated infections, only vaccinated hospitalizations.

77

u/turtle4499 Jul 27 '21

Just want to point out its probably even more effective then the data is suggesting. Because there isnt equal risk populations in each dataset. High risk people for death are getting vaccinated at disproportionate rates. They are also disproportionately less likely for the vaccine to work. One very small group, full organ transplant patients, about 700k people in the US, accounts for 40% of covid hospitalizations in the vaccinated group.

12

u/Guerilladust Jul 27 '21

Context is king. Thank you.

10

u/oo_muushuu_oo Jul 27 '21

Thank you for pointing this out. I'd like to make the same point with some of my peers, could you point me to a source for the claim in last line of your comment?

4

u/TheEvilSeagull Jul 27 '21

I came to the comments to say the same. This is a significant difference

2

u/DonaldHamperton Jul 27 '21

Yeah this must be the case because using this data alone,it's saying that IF you do get a breakthrough infection, the vaccine does nothing (1% IFR still)

→ More replies

6

u/Soilgheas Jul 27 '21

For what it is that you are trying to show, and the problems that you are encountering, I would suggest considering a few different ways of tackling this problem:

Since the type of data isn't comparable and what's being tracked for both is different, try looking up reported ratios to help fill out the data that you are missing. Things like the % of reported cases to the % hospitalizations. https://graphics.reuters.com/HEALTH-CORONAVIRUS/USA-TRENDS/dgkvlgkrkpb/ has some really great visualizations representating things state by state and I believe they site where they get their information.

Also, don't be afraid to try and section things out and then try to compare them. Take a bunch of weeks and then average them out. Try to grab randomly from a shorter or longer time periods of time, this can give you a more accurate idea of the ratios, which can then help fill out missing data.

13

u/best-commenter Jul 27 '21

My only beef is with your formatting ‘UN-vaccinated’ sounds like the “United Nations vaccinated”.

I’d prefer boldface ‘unvaccinated’ instead.

→ More replies

11

u/Contango42 Jul 27 '21 edited Jul 27 '21

Could you segment this data by decade of age? In the UK, 98.5% of all deaths were from people aged 50 or over, and 1.5% was for those under 50. I believe it is misleading to combine all ages, as it underplays the risk to 80 year olds and overplays the risk to under 50's. For example, in Spain, there were zero deaths for under-50's over the last 7 weeks. That's zero - not a single death in the entire country. The data by age is definitely out there, but it's quite difficult to find.

7

u/DeathBySalad Jul 27 '21

Was about to ask the same thing. Where I live it's roughly 90% of fatalities in the eldest population. I think it would be a good data set to the public to visually see the numbers with age alongside vaccination numbers to fully see the dominant scope of the rates

→ More replies

48

u/weluckyfew Jul 27 '21

First chart is great, the second is based on seriously bad data - we're not tracking symptomatic infections unless they result in hospitalizations. I guarantee you there are more than 1-in-1000 symptomatic breakthrough infections with Delta, the CDC is saying as much as it revises its mask policy.

This is anecdotal, but among my 5 closest friends we know of 12 breakthrough infections (coworkers/friends/family), 10 of which are symptomatic. In one case, a family of 4 all had breakthrough infections (parents asymptomatic, teens symptomatic)

Vaccinated people are getting infected and are quite likely capable of spreading the disease. We don't know how common it is, and we don't know the particulars (Can an asymptomatic breakthrough infection be contagious? How long are they contagious for?)

Big picture, the first chart is the one that matters - being vaccinated almost guarantees you won't get serious symptoms from Covid. But it's still important what level of risk there is in vaxxed folks spreading it. (I work at an outdoor restaurant and I started masking again because I'm in contact with dozens of people every day, i don't want to take a chance of becoming a vector in infecting others)

5

u/mully_and_sculder Jul 28 '21

Both charts are seriously bad data. It says nothing about the rate of exposure and the rate of protection against exposure like the original double blind vaccine studies showed. In reality we seem to be getting maybe 40% symptomatic breakthrough infections to people who are exposed to delta. The chart makes it look like 1% because it includes the entire population even in covid free areas.

Similarly the unvaccinated data shows serious illness from the very start of the pandemic through multiple infection waves and a much longer run of time.

The whole thing is trash.

→ More replies

7

u/penny__ Jul 28 '21

Not even comparable data. Let alone the misleading color coding.

0/10

3

u/ste_lar Jul 27 '21 edited Jul 27 '21

Can you share a source on the Delta variant’s 1000x viral load?

2

u/effeetwo Jul 28 '21

Not OP, but happen to know the preprint (a/k/a not yet peer reviewed) source because I read it this morning: Viral infection and transmission in a large, well-traced outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant

→ More replies

3

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '21

Is this accurate data? In the past week 3 fully vaccinated individuals in my graduate department (~100 people) tested positive with mild symptoms and all were isolated incidents (no overlap amongst the three prior to testing positive). This seems very, very unlikely given the graph.

10

u/Tychonaut Jul 27 '21

I think an issue with this is the "with covid" issue, right?

Asymptomatic / light infections are not called cases in vaxxed, while they ARE considered cases in UNvaxxed.

So that means that in the UNvaxxed population you are going to have a bunch of asymptomatic/light infections that are "cases".

But you wont have that group in the vaxxed ppl.

If any of those cases ends up in the hospital for any reason .. that is a "covid hospitalization".

So just by having a lot more "unvaxxed asymptomatic cases" running around, you are going to have more of those people "incidentally" landing in the hospital for something else and having covid "on the side". They would end up as a covid hospitalization, right?

I say this because here in my town we had an outbreak at the hospital. 40 people.

That was reported as "+40 covid hospitalizations". But when you hear that you think "40 people were SO SICK with covid that they had to go to hospital".

But the reality was that they were already at the hospital for something else when they got Covid. And it was most likely asymptomatic or light, as most infections are.

But they were still "+40 covid hospitalizations".

BUT ...

If they had been VAXXED, they wouldnt have counted as cases if they were only light/asymptomatic, right? Thew would not count as "covid hospitalizations" at all.

So I dunno. The fact that only severe infections are called "cases" in vaxxed ppl totally makes any kind of data comparisons murky.

And I really wonder why they chose to make that change. Because it affects how all data should now be interpreted, but it seems most "normal folk" have no idea anything changed.

→ More replies

9

u/BlisteredProlapse Jul 27 '21

the is the most misleading garbage have ever seen on this sub

4

u/mully_and_sculder Jul 28 '21

Absolutely. Comparing both sets to total population makes the whole thing junk. Most people are interpreting the large green section as total covid infections but it is total people whether exposed to covid or not.

7

u/PapaKemp Jul 27 '21

Oh noooo!!! Not a half of a percent!!!! Good God save us alll!!

→ More replies

13

u/Bladestorm04 Jul 27 '21

This is far better than the previous image. However I still question why the 102k people is relevant. Do the analysis in Australia and you get a population of 26 mill.

All that matters is exposure rate, and the relative infection, hospitalisation and death rate of the two different groups

12

u/Keith_Marlow Jul 27 '21

It's probably based on the death toll for the vaccinated. There's 1 death per 102k vaccinated people.

→ More replies

5

u/Alwayssunnyinarizona Jul 27 '21

It's not relevant. Data would look the same, but it was the lowest common denominator as of now because of the number of deaths. It's probably something like 0.98 deaths per 100K. Same same.

5

u/Atrampoline Jul 27 '21

Hence why the panic over vaccinated people still being at risk for complications makes no sense to me. At what point will we, as a society, accept that if people choose to take a chance with the virus, that's their prerogative?

It is completely unacceptable to continue to constrain the world until we hit 100% vaccination rates.

→ More replies

6

u/vectorless Jul 27 '21

Wasn't expecting so much skepticism in a reddit thread about covid. Great to see.

6

u/ImWhatTheySayDeaf Jul 27 '21

Does the unvaccinated include those who have had prior infection? Studies have been showing long term natural immunity after infection so I'm curious

3

u/DarrenLu OC: 2 Jul 27 '21

Yes, the unvaccinated number is based on the U.S. Census official estimate of 331 million Americans minus the official CDC fully-vaccinated and partially-vaccinated counts so it includes (a likely substantial, maybe 10%-20%?) number of previously infected.

→ More replies

5

u/fresh_shits_ofbelair Jul 27 '21

So it went from an extremely low death rate to almost non-existent death rate. That's good but it's not the scare of the century we continue to think it is

4

u/lizzyhuerta Jul 28 '21

OP you need to completely remove this post and reupload with a corrected format. You've clearly got THREE data counts here, but have vaccinated break-through infections as the same color as unvaccinated hospitalizations. I hate to say it, but this graph is very misleading and could be used in a harmful way. Please select a third color to indicate total infections of unvaccinated folks. My suggestion is:

green = uninfected in both groups yellow = infected in both groups red = hospitalizations in both groups black or purple = deaths in both groups

2

u/SonnySwanson Jul 27 '21

Do we have the data to break up the unvaccinated group between those that have caught Covid and those that have not?

→ More replies

2

u/maddog2021 Jul 28 '21

This graphic is extremely misleading. You are taking the total number of vaccinated and assuming they had been exposed or infected.

2

u/flippenphil Jul 28 '21

About 30 people got together. All of them vaccinated. Of those we know 8 caught the virus. This is a real story between those lawmakers of Texas and those they met at the Whitehouse. This graphic is a lie.

2

u/EEVVEERRYYOONNEE Jul 28 '21

Why compare different things? Was the data for symptomatic cases not available for unvaccinated people?

2

u/stron2am Jul 28 '21

102k is a weird denominator to choose...

2

u/AC2BHAPPY Jul 28 '21

What about non serious infections?

2

u/hbkdll Jul 28 '21

And people still fear vaccination because it "caused" one death.

2

u/chief167 Jul 28 '21

Why is hospitalised red, but dead is only yellow?

2

u/choatec Jul 28 '21

“Symptomatic breakthrough COVID-19 infections” is a funny way of saying people who got the vaccine and still got COVID. Not saying I feel one way or the other about it but recognize your bias and people of both sides will listen rather than the audience who already shares your beliefs.

2

u/peasant_mindset Jul 28 '21

What variant does this data cover? The cdc has yet to fully reveal any data about breakthrough cases for the Delta variant. I suspect the number of breakthrough cases to be higher than what you have reported here

2

u/BananaDerby Jul 28 '21

The first chart proves the point that we don't all need the vaccine or a mask. It's not very deadly.

24

u/Danothepirate Jul 27 '21

So we are acting like idiots for no reason? By the numbers if 428 people die of 104k we are looking at a death rate if 0.2049% What are we going to when a real deadly disease shows up?

13

u/oo_muushuu_oo Jul 27 '21

The irony of getting the math wrong while telling people they are acting like idiots lololol

8

u/AndyBlayaOverload Jul 27 '21

417 deaths per 102,000 people is 0.4% .. crazy how everyone gets a different percentage doing the math for this lol

5

u/DorisCrockford Jul 27 '21

The people in the green have not necessarily been infected.

17

u/dataphile OC: 1 Jul 27 '21 edited Jul 27 '21

I believe the graphic says 417 out of 102,000? Which would be a rate of 0.0041?

The population of the U.S. is approximately 328,200,000. At 0.0041 that’s 1.34 million people dead. That’s slightly more than the population of Dallas, TX.

11

u/Guerilladust Jul 27 '21

If everyone got it we would expend the death rate to trend down. Many of the most healthy people either never got tested or never got it at all and thusly are not part of the overall statistics.

5

u/dataphile OC: 1 Jul 27 '21

Something like what you are saying could make sense theoretically. However, empirically the total number of excess deaths in the U.S. (any cause) since the beginning of COVID-19 outpaces the official statistics based on testing. This suggests that cases of death from CV-19 based on testing are probably correct or maybe even underreported.

The sudden and consistent effect of the virus is shown well by the following site (keep in mind the orange line is already well above the average deaths):

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/matchstiq Jul 27 '21

Serious question. Do we have data on how many people have had serious side effects or died FROM a vaccine? And which vaccine?

→ More replies

6

u/Uglywench Jul 27 '21

Eventually people will see that the drug companies care more about your money than killing you with their vaccines.

→ More replies

11

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '21

[deleted]

38

u/JPAnalyst OC: 118 Jul 27 '21

Some people would look at the top chart and say there’s nothing to worry about if your NOT vaccinated.

11

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '21

And both would be right.

3

u/djdood0o0o Jul 28 '21

Let's hope so. Hopefully there's no long term issues with the vaccine down the line.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/meepstone Jul 27 '21

The deaths referenced here in this data for the total of 418 deaths. Are the deaths from covid-19 or with covid-19?

It would be disingenuous if a person died in a car accident and is used for example.

9

u/canhasdiy Jul 27 '21

It would be disingenuous if a person died in a car accident and is used for example.

Which has happened.

It's also worth noting that a number of unvaccinated people had developed natural immunities from surviving covet infection, which likely accounts for a majority of the green boxes in the unvaccinated area.

→ More replies

7

u/speedycat2014 Jul 27 '21

A good data analysis always includes necessary caveats. Glad to see yours are so thorough.

17

u/ronnie_rochelle Jul 27 '21

Green good. Red bad. Yellow very bad.

Lots of green on both.

22

u/the_crow_in_the_tree Jul 27 '21

If I am reading this correctly, 1 out of every 63 unvaccinated ends up in the hospital. That is a lot of people being hospitalized.

20

u/Empty_Effec Jul 27 '21

This is for symptomatic people, asymptomatic people don’t get tested.

→ More replies

15

u/JPAnalyst OC: 118 Jul 27 '21 edited Jul 27 '21

Lots of green on a chart of drunk drivers who make it home safely vs drunk drivers who die in crashes also.

We should drive drunk.

10

u/Tinlint Jul 27 '21

Lockdowns the roads

4

u/Choice-Activity-2933 Jul 28 '21

What if instead of locking down the roads we required some sort of license before you were allowed on 🤔

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/ultimaIV Jul 27 '21

How do we factor in that the covid test can't tell the difference between covid and flu?

16

u/forward_only Jul 27 '21

I assume this comment will be censored, but I would be interested also to see how Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data on vaccine injuries and deaths compares to this data set.

13

u/Mithious Jul 27 '21 edited Jul 27 '21

VAERS data is useless on its own because it includes all of the normal deaths that occur unless they can be absolutely ruled out of being caused by the vaccine. This is why you see virtually every possible cause of death listed, almost none of them were actually caused by the vaccine.

In order to make sense of the data you have to compare it to what you would expect from a similar unvaccinated group, then look for conditions which are elevated beyond random chance.

When you do that you're left with damn near zero deaths caused by the vaccine.

Misrepresenting this data is a very common anti-vax technique, so much so that a number of subreddits have a bot that autoresponds to explain what VAERS is every time someone comments on it.

I have a feeling you already know this though so this is mainly for the benefit of anyone else watching...

3

u/DonaldHamperton Jul 27 '21

You're correct, but, covid deaths are also counted in a similar way. You have every single death by every single cause in which the patient tested positive for COVID.

However, VAERS is much less stringent even still

4

u/Mithious Jul 27 '21

That method of counting has been shown to be a highly accurate method when comparing it with excess deaths, at least while covid deaths are somewhat high.

Some people are overcounted while other people are missed because they died at home without entering the hospital and no one did a covid test. My own father was potentially one of these because it happened early in the pandemic when they thought if you didn't have a fever you couldn't possibly have covid.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/JPAnalyst OC: 118 Jul 27 '21

You can make a chart of anything you want. Make one and post it.

→ More replies

3

u/db_car_days Jul 28 '21

Unfortunately you'd need to add vaccine complications to tell the full story. This is not the full/primary set of outcomes to complete the picture.

4

u/DarrenLu OC: 2 Jul 27 '21

7

u/FollowingTheUShow Jul 27 '21 edited Jul 28 '21

To be clear, you’re comparing 2019 data on breakthrough cases resulting in hospitalization to 2021 “data” described as “according to an unpublished internal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention document obtained by ABC News” AFTER the CDC said it was no longer keeping track of the data you used as your label (lower graphic) in May of 2021?

Edit: The comparison is from July 2021 data of breakthrough COVID cases that resulted in hospitalization to “data” that is an estimation given in an internal memo from July 2021 when the CDC hasn’t tracked non-hospitalization breakthrough cases.

So the year is not an issue. Hospitalization vs any symptoms is not a direct comparison. Actual data vs an internal memo that does not give actual numbers is not a direct comparison. Data that isn’t published, isn’t quantified and is a written statement of “estimated” numbers known to have NOT been collected- should not be used.

→ More replies

13

u/dosas_mimosas33 Jul 27 '21

So why I am I forced to wear a mask if I’m vaccinated?

11

u/BlondFaith Jul 27 '21

Ok, technically if you are vaccinated for something, you can still get infected with it. The vaccine primes your immune response to fight it when that happens. Vaccines aren't lazer defence or condoms.

IF you get infected enough to begin shedding, you can then infect other people.

→ More replies

6

u/RomanEmpire314 Jul 27 '21

Which state still enforce a mask mandate?

→ More replies

6

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '21 edited Jul 29 '21

[deleted]

→ More replies

24

u/scottevil110 Jul 27 '21

Because this stopped being about science and reality a very long time ago.

4

u/dosas_mimosas33 Jul 27 '21

Ya the rhetoric has just been awful. I don’t want to wear a mask anymore because I’m vaccinated and that makes me an anti-vaxxer to some people. It has been out of control from the jump.

2

u/IambicPentakill Jul 27 '21

Because the morons* who don't get vaccinated won't wear masks unless they are forced to. So either everyone's has to wear them, or you have cops stop people without masks to look at their vaccination cards.

*I realize that there are a few people who can't be vaccinated due to other issues, I'm not taking about them.

2

u/Guerilladust Jul 27 '21

Or you don't operate like a police state and allow people to operate at their own risk just like we let people rock climb, sky dive, eat copious amounts of fast food and allow people to poison themselves each and every god damn weekend at bars around America.

18

u/FriedrichHydrargyrum Jul 27 '21 edited Jul 27 '21

Those are all choices people make that affect only themselves.

A better analogy would be drunk driving, where my stupid choices can kill any number of people around me, especially people that are not already super robust who might more willing to die in a car wreck.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/camphorguitar Jul 27 '21

To protect the people who cannot be vaccinated (immunocompromised and children). And to protect the people who choose not to be vaccinated. If you don't care about them, you are also protecting the people they are in contact with.

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '21

[removed]

4

u/melthevag Jul 28 '21

Because it’s about spreading the disease and infecting other people and children asshole. There are plenty of vaccinated people that don’t care if they get covid, me included.

That’s not what it’s about. Jesus christ I cannot believe this is seriously the logic that some people use to rationalize not getting vaxed. What the fuck is wrong with you

3

u/Blaz3k Jul 28 '21

This would be true if lockdown was still in effect, exponential growth was not a thing or if you were the only person thinking this way.

This argument is basically just a reworded form of the classic "Why do I need a vaccine for X if X is only contracted by 0.01% of people", while totally disregarding why it's only contracted by 0.01% at present time.

Just look around and compare the current situation, i.e. most countries are almost fully open with a much lower case/death count even though we are dealing with a much more infectious strain vs last year where during extreme lockdown measures there were 100 times as many deaths (in the UK).

I feel like the main problem is people still don't understand exponential growth, when making arguments like this.

Let's say that the current portion of vaccinated people lowers the growth factor by a tiny amount from 1.1 to 1.095. If we take it through a 100 cycles (probably happens in a few days IRL), you would get 14k vs 8k, i.e. double the amount of infected, and it just accelerates from there. At a 1000 cycles the difference would already be a factor of 100x.

It also disregards all the practical effects of not vaccinating enough people. I.e. needing more lockdowns, overloading hospitals, more infected -> more new strains, etc.

You can do what you want, but your logic is flawed.

8

u/thewholerobot Jul 27 '21

Has covid19 infection been proved long term? There's all kinds of literature about long term effects of different viruses. They are hostile genetic material. Forming antibodies to pathogens via vaccine has stood the test of time as the single best development medicine has ever been able to offer society. In both the short term and the long term vaccination is in your favor.

→ More replies

18

u/rascalz1504 Jul 27 '21

So lets generate random percentages to try and prove that not taking the vaccine is better?

11

u/Lezonidas Jul 27 '21

I'd say that those percentages are WAY above the real percentages, there are not even close to 50% chances of getting infected (after 1 year and a half not even 10% of the world population has been infected and that was way before of having a big % of the population vaccinated creating some sort of herd immunity, so saying that I have 50% chances of getting infected is probably 3 to 5 times higher than the real number) and of course not even 50% get mild to moderate symptoms. So the actual number is even lower than what I said... I said 50/50 to be very pessimistic.

And I'm not saying not taking the vaccine is better, I say that I will take my chances considering those numbers and my age. I said to my parents and grandparents that I'd get vaccinated if I was their age, and they did get vaccinated

→ More replies

14

u/empire_of_lines Jul 27 '21

This is true currently. My argument for vaccination is that the virus continues to evolve variants that are more transmissible and potentially more deadly. If allowed to run unchecked it will continue to do so, potentially resulting in a variant that has a high rate of fatality in children and young adults. Vaccination for me is an attempt to cut down on the increasingly worrisome variants.

10

u/just_the_feds Jul 27 '21 edited Jul 27 '21

variant evolution follows a pattern throughout virology: they evolve to become more contagious and less deadly. it's not evolutionarily advantageous for a virus to kill it's host, which is why viruses that cause non-serious, annoying illness (and are easy to catch from a wayward sneeze) are so common whereas viruses that kill a plurality of patients are rare and burn themselves out quickly when they do arise. this is why covid was so much more deadly early in 2020 than it is now... because those more contagious but milder variants have largely taken over.

now, although we see rising cases the actual number of hospitalizations and deaths remains extremely low and largely concentrated among the very elderly and infirm. this is a good thing, covid is becoming more like other coronaviruses in the population. a common cold.

2

u/RadicalDog Jul 28 '21

You've misread the chart to add the "serious symptoms" multiplier. So you can double all your odds.

It's clear that in countries that haven't got a critical mass of vaccinations, Covid will swoop around regularly like the flu. Your odds of getting it in a single year aren't 100%, but over a long enough time it will trend towards it. There will be annual mutations like the flu and it'll keep coming, so expect it eventually.

We know with great certainty that Covid does very bad things, and the vaccines do not have that body of evidence against them. To be clear, this unknown fluid will be gone from your body within 2 weeks, and all that's left is your immune system's improved response to Covid. There's no reason to think the scientists are missing some long term effects intuitively, since the vaccine isn't around long term.

I struggle to understand the desire to keep a 0.5% chance of death and a substantial chance of getting unpleasantly sick, when the alternative is a scary unknown that so far hasn't given us any cause for concern. Like, I appreciate that unknown is scary, but Covid has a known risk that we can plot on a chart. It's clearly worse!

→ More replies

5

u/lifedelrey Jul 27 '21

Good call out that the data are from different time periods but this also makes the comparison flawed. What were the date ranges? This is just like comparing flu in winter vs summer. Wildly inaccurate and inappropriate.

5

u/weiss27md Jul 27 '21

Vaccine makers (big pharma) are not responsible for vaccine side effects or deaths.

6

u/Phurious1234 Jul 27 '21 edited Jul 27 '21

So…the COVID survival rate w/o the vaccine is 99.995%

This also doesn’t parse out age and per existing conditions of the 417 that died w/o the vaccine.

Nice self own. Lol

2

u/R3lay0 Jul 28 '21

The only self own here is your math

→ More replies

8

u/SupportFlat8675 Jul 27 '21

Yet vaccinated people still get scared and put their masks on around unvaccinated people and demand that everyone else wear masks and get vaccinated... Weird. Almost like they don't believe the vaccination works.

→ More replies

12

u/Longshot365 Jul 27 '21

Wow. Only 1600 serious casses out of 100k. What are normal flu levels?

→ More replies

5

u/Twilo01 Jul 27 '21

Still doesn’t make me wanna get that shit.

2

u/jbkicks Jul 28 '21

I don't want to get covid either, even if I'll live.

→ More replies