I agree with that. You can see this in Ontario COVID statistics.
People that did not take the vaccine, despite all the pressure, tend to be healthier as population. They kind of self selected by being self confident in their health and not worrying about dying from COVID. The triple vaccinated in Ontario are now the highest risk of getting COVID. They too self selected, by tending to be older with pre existing health problems, and worried enough to get boosters.
> The triple vaccinated in Ontario are now the highest risk of getting COVID
I don't understand how the source you shared supports this claim*. If anything, it shows the opposite - you're at far higher risk of death if you're unvaccinated. And that's after considering the fact that unvaccinated people are likely to be younger and fitter.
The unvaccinated have, at best, half as many deaths per 100k as those who are fully vaccinated + booster (in reality, the two lines mostly track each other). Which sounds good, until you realize that the unvaccinated make up only 9% of the population. 33% of the deaths coming from 9% of the population - healthier, they are not. Delusional, would be more correct.
* I'm assuming "getting COVID" here means "having serious consequences from an infection" as opposed to merely being infected. The vaccinated make up the vast majority of the population, so it's obvious that they are also at the highest risk of being infected by COVID. There are very few unvaccinated people left for the virus to infect.
The numbers have already been adjusted. So what you're seeing is the rate of covid cases per 100k people in each group. 3rd graph from the top. You're trying to adjust the numbers twice for the unvaccinated.
If you don't believe me, here is a second set of data from Walgreens. Look at the third page.
Doesn't it? I see a graph titled "Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status". And that still shows higher deaths/100k in the "Not fully vaccinated" group for every given adult age range: 18-39, 40-59, and 60+ (look at the All time data).
> here is a second set of data from Walgreens. Look at the third page.
That shows the positivity rate. I'm not talking about the positivity rate. We're beyond that now. Everyone will get Covid someday. The vaccine protects you from dying or having serious health issues. There's no vaccine, for any disease, that can prevent you from contracting the disease. That would require vaccines to create force fields around your body, which are science fiction. In the case of the most efficacious vaccines, your immune system will be so well-prepared that your body will fight off the infection without you ever getting any symptoms.
I missed the "Deaths stats" as I did not see those before, the last time I looked.
So the last cited death rate is 0.01 vs 0.02 / per 100,000 people. So the vaccinated have 1 death per (100 * 100,000 = 10 million). Or 1 death per 10 million and the "not fully vaccinated" have 2 deaths per 10 million. To give context Ontario has a population of 14 million people. This seems like an easy relative win for the vaccine.
Except:
1) The numbers of deaths are so low, its kind of meaningless to extrapolate to the general population from them, because of sample bias effects.
One reason being that deaths could be coming from a very likely specific sub population. For example very old sick people already in hospital or nursing homes near death that contract the disease. Pretty much anything could kill them. It has no bearing on how a random person from the general population would react. You might have situation where for example there are people that chemo therapy failed, and they either refuse the vaccine (since they will die within weeks anyway) or might be so sick and too weak to take the vaccine and then contract covid as the last straw that breaks them.
So it would be very disingenuous to claim based on such small number that the vaccine lowered deaths in the general population. It would be like telling people in Hawaii to wear gloves to prevent frostbite, based on data collected from Canada showing that people that did not wear gloves had twice the rate of frostbite.
2) "Unvaccinated" and "Not Fully Vaccinated" are two different things according to their definition. They're clearly counting anyone that died within two weeks of getting a shot as being unvaccinated, even if it was their second shot. This is not a fair comparison.
3) Our prime minister caught covid twice in the last 4 months despite being vaccinated and boosted.
There have been studies that show that natural acquired immunity is longer lasting. Since the odds of dying are so low at this point, would you rather get covid once and feel a little bit sicker, unvaccinated, for longer lasting immunity. Or would you rather get vaccinated and boosted and catch it twice, feeling a little less sick each time.
Which is what the data seems to be showing is happening.
This seems like it should be personal preference decision.
Last update was June 10. So it's still pretty recent.
Ontario did not release data on death rates to the public. I don't know why.
I briefly read on twitter that UK is showing startling differences now, with the vaccinated having a much higher all cause mortality rate. If true, I don't know if its this effect at play or if some of the conspiracy theories were right.
You are right that people who take vaccines and who do not probably bifurcate along other lines as well. But you’re doing everything even more of a disservice by speculating the dimensions as if it’s established fact. Maybe the unvaccinated aren’t healthier they’re just liars? Also any self respecting study would control for the simple demographics like age so your hypothesis would be quite moot if the study was done with any rigor.
It was literally never claimed that it was 97% effective at stopping COVID. The Pfizer vaccine was 97% effective at preventing severe disease after two doses in early 2021. Don't bring conspiracy nonsense into every discussion about healthcare.
Here is the claim from pfizer's own press release.
"Vaccine effectiveness was at least 97% against symptomatic COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, severe and critical hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the analysis found a vaccine effectiveness of 94% against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. "
You just proved yourself wrong? What do you think this says? It literally never claims to be 97% effective at (your words) stopping COVID. That implies that it prevents the infection from spreading and/or causing symptoms, neither of which is part of that statement in the press release.
To be very specific they took two samples of about 22,000 people each. One vaccinated and one given placebo. Then they counted how many people they caught with covid in each sample. 8 vs 162. Then based on those numbers claimed the 97% effectiveness as stopping infection (people getting sick).
Here's a video confirming that this is how they measured efficiency.
8 vs 162 is the people that they confirmed with PCR test to be positive.
They did not actually test everyone for covid. They admit that there were other people they suspected of having covid.
"Among 3210 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs 1816 in the placebo group." Page 42 of the pfizer data leaks.
Hope you see why claiming 97% efficiency to the public was misleading.
After a year, and millions of vaccines later, we can clearly say that the study was bullshit. The vaccine did not offer anywhere near the sort of long lasting immunity that approaches 97%.
Our prime minster despite having two shots and boosted was sick with covid twice in 4 months.
So to cite this study as being accurate is kind of like claiming pigs can fly. Yes I suppose they could. If they jump off a cliff, for a brief second they could.
Again, you are completely wrong and simply spouting vaccine conspiracy nonsense. It is very clear from the study that those "suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases" are those who reported one flu-like symptom but had a NEGATIVE PCR test. A very detailed explanation of why you are wrong to want to include those in the efficacy percentage number can be found here: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/refuting-peter-doshi-.... It is not clear whatsoever that the study was bullshit, and the results speak for themselves. An anecdote about your Prime Minister is meaningless and occurred AFTER this initial study period when the variants had changed the landscape and these numbers were no longer applicable.
Since you are still claiming that it was 95% effective. Can you give a time estimate for how long that efficiency lasted?
This study concludes " Primary immunization with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine provided limited protection against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron variant. "
I read the article you cited. Here's the problem as I see with it.
"Among 3210 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs 1816 in the placebo group"
The pfizer results are dependent on the accuracy of the PCR test.
"The false-negative rate for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is highly variable: highest within the first 5 days after exposure (up to 67%), and lowest on day 8 after exposure (21%)."
2. PCR tests do not show previous infection. Meaning that Pfizer PCR testing would miss all those people that had "flu-like symptoms" had covid, and recovered prior to getting tested. Did the pfizer study accounts for such likely scenarios?
Finally, why were there so many people with "Flu-like symptoms" in the pfizer study yet they did not have covid or the flu? Since we know that flu infections were at record lows during the last two years. Any explanation for this?
That's 94%, and it was true vs the original strain immediately after vaccination. Now many people are six months or more past their last shot and the current virus is two years of evolution improved vs the original. Vaccination reduces personal risk significantly but it's not going to control spread by itself.
People that did not take the vaccine, despite all the pressure, tend to be healthier as population. They kind of self selected by being self confident in their health and not worrying about dying from COVID. The triple vaccinated in Ontario are now the highest risk of getting COVID. They too self selected, by tending to be older with pre existing health problems, and worried enough to get boosters.
https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data?fbclid=1