Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're taking 14 vs 10 from table 15 on page 50 on the report. Page 51 says:

> The rates in Table 15 should not be used as a measures of vaccine effectiveness due to unaccounted for biases and risk factors.

The age-standardized morality rates you mentioned are for just the week of Jan 8-14 (though the same pattern is visible for earlier weeks). But, you didn't mention 3-dose stats with show the opposite pattern:

- Unvaccinated: 16/1.5m raw; 10/100k age adj

- 2-dose: 33/1m raw; 14/100k age adj

- 3-dose: 71/3m raw; 1.5/100k age adj

You can't infer the protectiveness of vaccination in elders directly from this age-adjusted mortality data because Scotland has 100% 2+ dose coverage in those age 60+. The unvaccinated group only includes people under 60 while the vaccinated group includes both. You have to use other observations to judge the protective effect.

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/phs.covid.19/viz/COVI...

(In reality the number is a bit under 100% because the denominator and the numerator are not linked together. They're tracking sum totals, not individual people.)



To put it more directly, the same document states (on page 36):

In the last week from 08 January 2022 to 14 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the COVID-19 related death rate in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.2 to 9.4 times lower than individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine


You pulled a quote that compares boosted vs unvaccinated/one/two doses, and that is not the comparison I was making. It's possible that I'm misinterpreting the data, but you didn't show it right there.


>you didn't mention 3-dose stats with show the opposite pattern:

I didn't. Boosted do show more protection than unvaccinated, at least for a period of time. I don't dispute that.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: