Will you get the booster shot?

[skyguy918]

The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals.

ETA:

Beat me to it by a few seconds. Didn't read the paper, but all of the replies to his follow-up tweet quoted this part of the paper.

[yitzgar]

Ok, I just tried to actually read the paper, and in the discussion they address this question:

"The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals."

So I think they're saying that VE calculation may not be so meaningful in that time period because vaxed were behaving differently, exposing themselves to more large social events, so more likely to get infected than unvaxed.  This sounds like a reasonable speculation to me, but I'm not an epidemiologist etc, so will wait to hear whether the experts buy it.

In any event, they are saying that immunity basically returns with the booster, even if it's short-lasting against Omicron, which might be all we need, since Omicron seems to be short-lasting as an epidemic, so if we can all boost our immunity for another month or so, we may be over it.

Makes sense, but it's doubtful that unvaccinated are any more careful than vaxxed.
It's a real shame that they don't take into account whether the unvaccinated we're previously infected, as that could explain why more vaxxed are getting infected than unvaccinated. If true, it will end up having a negative effect on people's perception of the efficacy of the vaccine

[AsherO]

Found this about the negative numbers. No clue how he got to what he's saying, I just see that's what he's quoting.

https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/1474106318206255113

Not sure what you “found out” from that tweet more than what was already being discussed here.

[biobook]

Makes sense, but it's doubtful that unvaccinated are any more careful than vaxxed.

Actually, this is a known phenomenon, that sometimes when measures are taken to decrease accidents, the result is an increase in accidents because when people feel they have extra protection, they may respond by taking extra risks.  For example, after requiring kids to wear bicycle helmets, or knee pads on skateboards, they may behave less carefully.  So similarly, those who've been vaxed may be more likely to attend large social events.

It's a real shame that they don't take into account whether the unvaccinated we're previously infected, as that could explain why more vaxxed are getting infected than unvaccinated.

They did take this into account, by not including those people in their study. "Previously SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive individuals were excluded."  This allowed them to more clearly focus on the effect of the vaccine, rather than previous infection. 

[as2]

Not sure what you “found out” from that tweet more than what was already being discussed here.

Specifically how he applies those negative numbers. He seemed to get that it is a higher likelihood. I didn't have a great understanding to begin with, so I was just throwing out his insight in hopes someone who understood it better could call it bogus, or use it to shed new light.

[yitzgar]

Actually, this is a known phenomenon, that sometimes when measures are taken to decrease accidents, the result is an increase in accidents because when people feel they have extra protection, they may respond by taking extra risks.  For example, after requiring kids to wear bicycle helmets, or knee pads on skateboards, they may behave less carefully.  So similarly, those who've been vaxed may be more likely to attend large social events.
 

But in this case, people that didn't get the vaccine overwhelmingly aren't the leat bit concerned, while many vaxxed have still been cautious

[yitzgar]

They did take this into account, by not including those people in their study. "Previously SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive individuals were excluded."  This allowed them to more clearly focus on the effect of the vaccine, rather than previous infection.

Didn't realize that, thanks

[biobook]

But in this case, people that didn't get the vaccine overwhelmingly aren't the leat bit concerned, while many vaxxed have still been cautious

You're thinking of the vocal antivaxxers in America, but they did their research in Denmark.  Different age groups, different politics, etc.

[Yehuda57]

so if we can all boost our immunity for another month or so, we may be over it.

In other words, WE'RE ALMOST AT THE END!

[yitzgar]

You're thinking of the vocal antivaxxers in America, but they did their research in Denmark.  Different age groups, different politics, etc.

Maybe...I have a feeling that some people are just the personality that doesn't really worry about this tye of thing and has no interest in getting this particular vaccine. These aren't your run of the mill antivaxxera....

[biobook]

Maybe...I have a feeling that some people are just the personality that doesn't really worry about this tye of thing and has no interest in getting this particular vaccine. These aren't your run of the mill antivaxxera....

Right, there are all kinds of people who are not vaccinated, so we can't really know who were the unvaccinated in this study from Denmark, and that's why I said they're just speculating when they say that the vaxed were more likely to get omicron because of their behavior, rather than because of some biological effect of the vaccination.

[AsherO]

Specifically how he applies those negative numbers. He seemed to get that it is a higher likelihood. I didn't have a great understanding to begin with, so I was just throwing out his insight in hopes someone who understood it better could call it bogus, or use it to shed new light.

Meh, I have no reason to believe he has any more insight than I do

[as2]

Meh, I have no reason to believe he has any more insight than I do

There. That's all I was looking for

[AsherO]

There. That's all I was looking for

No idea what you’re on about. The exact thing pointed out in this thread is what was noted on that Tweet, posting it didn’t contribute anything insightful.

[as2]

No idea what you’re on about. The exact thing pointed out in this thread is what was noted on that Tweet, posting it didn’t contribute anything insightful.

Never mind. As I've said many a time, articulation is not my strong point. My point is not being made and it's on me.

[S209]

But in this case, people that didn't get the vaccine overwhelmingly aren't the leat bit concerned, while many vaxxed have still been cautious

I know a family of hardcore antivaxxers who are probably more cautious about COVID than anyone else I know.

[CountValentine]

I know a family of hardcore antivaxxers who are probably more cautious about COVID than anyone else I know.

I know someone struck by lightning. 

[S209]

I know someone struck by lightning. 

Do you really?

[CountValentine]

Do you really?

Yes

[AsherO]

Do you really?

It’s more common than people realize